
R.,i.k .W4M4 



PHESENTEI) BY 



^ 






ANALYSIS 



IVATSON'S THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



FOR THE USE OF STUDENTS 



EXAMINING COMMITTEES. 



NEW. YORK: 

PUBLISHED BY G. LANE & P. P. SANDFORD, 

FOR THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, AT THE CONFERENCE 

OFFICE, 200 MULBERRY-STREET. 



J. Collord, Printer. 
1842. 






Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1842, by 
G. Lane & P. P Sandford, in the Clerk's Office of the District 
Court of the Southern District of New-York, 



<3fft 
Judge and Mrs. Isaac R. Hftt 
July 3, 1933 



PREFACE. 



The student who desires to employ this 
Analysis to advantage, should first read over 
the whole of the Institutes, or one of the leading 
divisions thereof, without referring to the Ana- 
lysis at all. Then let him study the plan of this 
outline. Afterward he should make an analy- 
sis for himself, of each subject, without refer- 
ence to this volume, comparing his work, how- 
ever, as he proceeds, with the Analysis here 
furnished. He should thus make himself master 
of each division, so as to give its substance, at 
least, from memory. Whoever does this faith- 
fully, will have in his mind, when he rises from 
the perusal of the Institutes, not only a compre- 
hensive knowledge of its contents, but also a 
sufficiently accurate skeleton of the entire 
course of teaching and argument. 

For the use of committees of examination, it 
is thought that the Analysis will be found much 
more useful than a series of questions, the effect 
of which is to lead the student merely to select 



(,. 



4 PREFA 

from the text such parts as will supply corres- 
ponding answers, by which means it is hardly 
possible to obtain a clear and connected view 
of any argument. The best mode of examin- 
ing, doubtless, is to assign a distinct topic to 
each candidate, and require him to treat of it 
in order, giving its outline, with the necessary 
illustrations and explanations, without assist- 
ance from the examiner. After he shall have 
thus gone through his subject, and not before, 
the examiner might propose questions upon such 
points as may have been omitted, or upon the 
principles that may be deduced from the subject, 
and its practical applications. In this way en- 
tire impartiality will be secured, and the candi- 
date will have the best opportunity of manifest- 
ing his acquaintance with the subject. It will 
require, to be sure, that both examiner and can- 
didates shall master the siabject thoroughly, but 
that is the very object to be most earnestly 
aimed at. * . • 

The pages referred to throughout the Ana- 
lysis are those of the octavo edition, in two 
volumes. 

June 10, 1842. 









ANALYSIS 



WATSON'S THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES. 



GENERAL DIVISION. 



Part I. Evidences, 

" II, DOCTIIINES, 

^* HI. Morals, 

" IV. Institutions 



>of Christianity. 



^ . Pi^T FIRST. 

Evidences of the Divine Authority of the 
,. ' Holy Scriptures. 

Outline. 

I. Presumptive evidence. 

A. That a direct revelation would be made 
in some way. (Pp. 1-62.) 

B. That it would be m^de in this way, 
i. e., in the 7nanner in which Christianity 



b ANALYSIS OF 

professes to have been revealed. (Pp. 
62-70.) 

II. Direct evidence, preliminary to the intro- 
duction of which are considered 
(1.) The kind and degree of evidence ne- 
cessary to authenticate a revelation. (Pp. 
70-95.) 
(2.) The use and limitation of reason in 
religion ; (pp. 95-105 ;) after which the 
positive evidences are introduced under 
the following heads : — viz. 

(I.) External evidence. 

I. Preliminaries. 

(A.) Antiquity of the Scriptures. (Pp. 105- 
133.) 

(B.) Uncorrupted preservation of the 
books of Scripture. (Pp. 134-141.) 

(C.) Credibility of the testimony of the 
sacred writers ; (pp. 141-146 ;) which 
being established, of course prove the 
genuineness and authenticity of the books 
of Scripture. 

II. Argument. 

(A.) From miracles. 

Real miracles were wrought. (Pp. 146- 

156.) 
Objections i(>'Ahe proof from miracles 

answered. (Pp. 156-175.) 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 7 

(B.) From prophecy. 

Real predictions were delivered. (Pp. 

175-193.) 
Objections to the proof from prophecy 
answered. (Pp. 194-204.) 
(II.) Internal evidence. 

(A.) The excellence and beneficial tendency 
of the doctrines of Scripture. (Pp. 205- 
225.) 
(B.) Moral tendency of the Scriptures. (Pp. 

225-230.) 
(C.) Style and manner of the sacred writers. 
(Pp. 220,231,232.) 
(III.) Collateral evidence. (Pp. 232-236.) 

And finally 
(IV.) Miscellaneous objections are answered. 
(Pp. 236-262.) 



PRESUMPTJVE EVIDENCE. 

A. Presumptive evidence that a direct revelation 
would he made in some way. 
I. (Chap, i.) Man a moral agent. 

a.) Man has always been considered capa- 
ble of performing moral actions; which 
are — voluntary actions, .having respect 
to some rule. 



ANALYSIS OF 

b.) Antecedent to human laws, there must 
have been a perception of the difference 
of moral actions, because many actions 
would be judged good or evil, were all 
civil codes abolished, 
c.) This perception may be traced, in part, 
to experience and observation of the 
injurious tendency of vice, and the bene- 
ficial results of virtue ; — but 
d.) It cannot be so traced entirely. There 
has been, among all men, a constant 
reference to the will of God, or of 
supposed deities, as a rule to deter- 
mine the good or evil of the conduct of 
men. 

We derive from these considerations 
two weighty presumptions : supposing 
the Theist to grant the existence of a 
Supreme Creator, of infinite power, wis- 
dom, &c.: — 
First, (from a, b, and c,) That those actions 
which men consider good^ have the implied 
sanction of the will of the Creator. 
Second, That they were originally, in some 
way, enjoined as his law, and their con- 
traries prohibited. 
II. (Chap. 2.) The rule which deter- 
mines THE QUALITY OF MORAL ACTIONS 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. \) 

MUST BE PRESUMED TO BE MATTER OF 
REVELATION FROM GoD. 

a.) Creation implies government- — and go- 
vernment implies law — which must be 
revealed: — and a revelation of divine 
will may be made either, (1.) By signifi- 
cant actions, or (2.) By direct commu- 
nication m language. The Theist admits 
that (1) has been done. The Christian 
admits (1) and (2) both: declaring (1) 
to be insufficient, and the question is, 
On which side is the presumption of 
truth ? 

b.) We assert that natural indications are 
insufficient for the formation of a virtuous 
character, and illustrate the deficiency 
by reference to temperance— justice — 
benevolence — worship — prayer — a fu- 
ture state, and the pardon of sin. 
III. (Chaps. 3, 4, 5.) A is proved by the 

WEAKNESS OF HUMAN REASON AND THE 
WANT OF AUTHORITY IN HUMAN OPI- 
NIONS. (Pp. 15-44.) 

a.) Granting that a perfect reason could 
determine the moral quality of actions, — 
Yet (1.) That perfect reason ig not to 
be found ; (2.) Men differ greatly in their 
reasoning powers ; {3.) Men are not 



10 ANALYSIS OF 

sufficiently contemplative, nor sufficient- 
ly honest, for such inquiries ; (4.) We 
find that men bring down the rule to the 
practice, rather than raise the practice to 
the rule. 
b.) But supposing truth discovered, and in- 
tellectual men appointed to teach others, 
what authority hav e they ? 

1 . We answer a priori, no other autho- 
rity than the opinion of a teacher, — 
which might be received or not. 

2. kxidi facts are sufficiently in proof of 
this. — Cicero, &c. 

c.) (Chap. 4.) But reason, alone, cannot 
determine the moral quality of actions. 
(1.) Reason is an erring faculty, and 
its exercise is limited by our knowledge, 
(2.) It is one thing to assent to a doctrine 
when discovered and proposed, and 
another to make such discovery origin- 
ally. (3.) The principles of (what is 
called) natural religion command the 
assent of reason, but the question is, 
Whence came they? (4.) Certainly they 
were never mentioned as discoveries, 
either by the sacred writers, or sages 
, of antiquity, 
d.) In. fact, sober views of great reli- 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 11 

gious truths have been found nowhere, 

since patriarchal times, save in the sacred 

writings : — thus, 

(1.) Existence of God. Ancient doubts. 
Modern Budhists. 

(2.) Creation of /Tza^^^r. Eternity of matter 
was the doctrine of the Ionic, Platonic, 
Italic^ aiict "^^loic schools. Aristotle. 

(3.) Individuality of the human soul. 

(4.) Doctrine of Providence. Ancients be- 
lieved in conflicting and subordinate 
gods. 

(5.) Immortality of the human soul. An- 
cient doctrine of absorption. Modern 
Hindoo notion of annihilation. 
e.) (Chap. 5.*) Those truths which are found 

in the writings and religious systems of 

the heathen can be traced to revelation. 

(1.) There was a substratum of common 
opinions among all early nations, in re- 
gard to facts and doctrines which are 
contained in the Old Testament : — thus, 
golden age, sacrifice, formation of the 
world, &c. (P. 27.) 

(2.) (Pp. 27, 28, &c.) Adam, a moral agent, 
must have had instruction from the Crea- 

* The notes td this chapter are very valuable, and should 
be studied carefully, in connection with the text. 



12 ANALYSIS OF 

tor, and his knowledge might easily have 
been transmitted to NoaNs time, fqr 
Methuselah was contemporary with 
both Adam and Noah. Then after the 
flood, the system would of course be pro- 
pagated by Noah's descendants, and we 
find it received in the family of Abra- 
ham, Subsequently it was doubtless 
vastly diffiised by the dispersions and 
restorations of the children of Israel. 
Nine conclusions. (P. 33.) 
IV. A is proved by the necessity of reve- 
lation, — evinced, 
a.) By the state of religious knowledge among 
the heathen, (chap, vi,) with regard to the 
first principles of religion : viz. 

1 . God. The notion of subordinate deities 
obtained equally with that of one su- 
preme God. The eternity of matter 
and its perversity, not to be control- 
led even by God, were favourite opin- 
ions. 

2. Providence. If admitted at all, the doc- 
trine vv^as vitiated and counteracted by 
other opinions. The Epicureans denied 
it : Plato joined fortune with God, and 
Polytheism gave up the world to oppos- 
ing and conflicting powers. 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 13 

3. Future state. Oriental doctrine's of 
transmigration and absorption. Periodi- 
cal destruction and renovation. Aris- 
totle, Democritus, Heraclitus, and Epi- 
curus either denied or refused to counte- 
nance the doctrine of the soul's existence 
after death. Cicero doubted ; Pliny and 
Cesar denic^ ic ; Seneca wavered, 
b.) By the state of morals among the heathen. 
(Chap, vii.) 

(1.) Their moral and religious systems 
were doubtless from a common source. 

(2.) But the rules had become involved 
in obscurity, their injunctions lacked 
authority, and the general practices of 
men had become vicious. The subject 
is illustrated by adverting to certain pre- 
cepts of the second table, and showing 
that, although heathen nations have been 
sensible of the obligation of these, among 
all of them the rule has been perverted 
in theory and violated in practice. 

1. Murder and suicide. Disregard of life 
among heathen. Gladiatorial combats. 
Treatment of slaves and children. 

2. Hatred and revenge. Cicero. Aristotle. 

3. Adttltery, divorce, fornicatio7i, Slc. Laws 
in regard to these, though acknowledged, 



14 ANALYSIS OF 

yet grossly violated among heathen na- 
tions, even down to crimes ndpa (pvatv. 

4. Theft and rapine. Honesty almost un- 
known among heathen. 

5. Lying. Menander. Plato. India. 

c.) By the fact, that their religions themselves 
were destructive of morality. (Chap, viii.) 

1. Their gloomy superstitions fostered 
ferocity and cruelty. Human sacrifices 
among ancients, and also in modern 
Africa, Asia, and America. 

2. Their religions were as productive of 
impurity as of bloodshed. Roman 
Floralia. Mysteries. Indian temple 
worship. 

B. Presumptive evidence that a direct revelation 
would he made in this way : i. e., in the 
manner in which Christianity professes to 
have been revealed. (Pp. 62-70.) 
a.) A supernatural manifestation of truth 
should, 

1. Contain explicit information on those 
subjects which are most important to 
man ; 

2. Accord with the principles of former 
revelations ; 

3. Have a satisfactory external authenti- 
cation ; 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 15 

4. Contain provisions for its effectual pro- 
mulgation, 
b.) All these conditions are fulfilled in the 
Scriptures. 

1. They give information as to God, man, 
a Mediator, Providence, future 

STATE, &c. 

2. Three distinct religious systems, the 
Patriarchal, Mosaic, and Christian, har- 
monize in their doctrines and objects. 

3. The Mosaic and Christian revelations 
profess to rest on external evidence. 

4. Provision made (1.) By writing. (2.) By 
commemorative rites, &c. (3.) By ac- 
credited teachers. 



IL DIRECT EVIDENCE. 

Two preliminaries. 
(I.) (Chap, ix.) The evidences necessary/ to au- 
thenticate a revelation. 

1. External, principal and most appropri- 
ate : if not to the immediate recipient, at 
least to those to whom he communicates 
it. There are two branches of the exter- 
nal proof. Miracles and Prophecy,- 



16 ANALYSIS OF 

(a.) Miracles. 

1. Definition. 1.) Popular. 2.) Philo- 
sophic. 3.) Theological. 

2. Possibility of miracles. (Pp. 74, 75.) 

3. Distinction between real miracles and 
prodigies. Criteria. (P. 76.) 

4. Necessity of connection between 
even such real miracles, the messen- 
ger, and his message. (P. 78.) 

5. Human testimony sufficient to establish 
the credibility of miracles . (Pp. 78, 79.) 
(1.) Hume's objection. 

(2.) Replies to it by Paley — Llan- 
doff — Campbell. 

6. Fitness of the evidence of miracles, as 
a ground of universal belief. (P. 85.) 

(b.) Prophecy. 

1. Possibility not to be denied. Di- 
lemma. 

2. Adequateness as a proof. 
2. Internal. 

(a.) Nature of the evidence. 

(b.) Its rank in the scale of evidence. 

1 . Not necessary : sufficient proof with- 
out it : but nevertheless useful. 

2. Not pn'mfl^ry, but confirmatory. The 
contrary opinion not only supposes 
us capable of judging fully of the 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 17 

doctrines revealed, but also renders the 
external testimony comparatively nuga- 
tory. Two sources of this error. 
(1.) The notion that miracles might 
be wrought to attest unworthy doc- 
trines. 
(2.) A confounding of the rational with 
the authenticating evidence. 
3. Not so well adapted to the mass of man- 
kind as external evidence. 
3. Collateral. Nature of the evidence 
stated. (P. 94.) 
(II.) (Chap, xi.) The use and limitation of 
reason in religion. 
(a.) Use of reason in regard to revelation. 

1. To investigate the evidences of its di- 
vine authority. 

2. To interpret the meaning of the record, 
(b.) Limitation. 

1. It must not decide in cases where the 
nature of things is not known, either hy 
or without revelation. 

2. The things compared must be of the 
same nature^ and the comparison must 
be made in the same respects. 

These preliminaries being settled, we now 
proceed to adduce positive evidences, of which 
there are three heads, viz. : 
2 



18 ANALYSIS OF 

I. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 

(L) Preliminaries. 

(A.) (Chap, xii.) Antiquity of the Scrip- 
tures. 
a.) (P. 107.) The persons who were the 
immediate instruments of these revela- 
tions, existed at the periods assign- 
ed. Proved, 
(1.) By the very existence of 1.) The 
Jewish polity ; and 2.) The Christian 
religion. 
(2.) By the testimony of ancient au- 
thors. 

1 . As to Moses. Manetho, Apollonius, 
Strabo, Justin, Pliny, Tacitus, Ju- 
venal, Longinus, Diod. Siculus, &c. 

2. As to CAm^. Suetonius, Tacitus, 
b.) (P. 109.) The BOOKS which contain the 

doctrines are of the date assigned to 
them. Proved, , 

(1.) As to Old Testament. ' 

1. By the language in which it is 
written. 

2. By Josephus' Catalogue. 

3. By the Septuagint, and by Samari- 
tan Pentateuch. 

. 4. By Leslie's Argument, which 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 19 

gives four rules for determining 
the truth of matters of fact, all 
which are applied with success to 
the Old Testament, viz. : 
(1.) The matter of fact must be 

cognizable by the senses. 
(2.) The matter of fact must be 

publicly done. 
(3.) The matter of fact must be 

commemorated by monuments 

and outward actions, 
(4.) Which must date from the 

time of the matters of fact. 
(2.) As to New Testament. 

1. By Leslie's Argument, as before. 

2. By internal evidence from the 
narration itself. 

3. Testimony of adversaries. Cel- 
sus. Porphyry, Hierocles, Ju- 
lian. 

4. Quotations by subsequent au- 
.• V ••thors, from the apostles downward. 

(P. 126.) 
(B.) (Chap, xiii.) Uncorrupted preserva- 
tion OF THE BOOKS OF ScRIPTURE. 

a.) The books are substantially the same 
as when written. Proved, 
(1.) As to Old Testament. By the list 



20 ANALYSIS or 

of Josephus, Septuagint, and Samaritan 
Pentateuch. 

(2.) As to New Testament. By the cata- 
logues of Origen, Athanasius, Cyril, 
&c., from A. D. 230, downward, 
b.) But it can he shoion also, that they have 
descended to us iDithout any material 
alteration whatever. 

(1.) As to Old Testament. 

1. Before the time of Christ, they were 
secured from alteration by their being 
generally known, — by the jealousy of 
the Samaritans,— by the public read- 
ing on sabbath, — by Chaldee Para- 
phrase, and the Greek version. 

2. After the birth of Christy by mutual 
jealousy of Jews and Christians, and 
the general diffusion of the books. 

3. ' All this is confirmed ^%^^q agree- 
ment of the manuscripts in all import- 
ant respects. (P. 138.) 
(2.) As to New Testament. .' - 

1 . From their contents. Same facts and 
doctrines. 

2. Impossibility of corruption hecBMse of 
general knowledge of the books, and 
mutual restraints of orthodox and here- 
tics, Eastern and Western churches. 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 31 

3. From the agreement of the manu- 
scripts. 

4. From the agreement of ancient ver- 
sions and quotations. 

[C) (Chap, xiv.) Credibility of the tes- 
timony OF THE SACRED WRITERS. 

(1.) That they were persons of virtuous 
and sober character was never denied. 

(2.) They were in circumstances to know 
the truth of what they relate. They 
could not be deceived, for instance, as 
to the feeding of the four thousand, gift 
of tongues, &c. 

(3.) They had no interest in making good 
the story. Their interests all lay in the 
opposite direction. 

(4.) Their account is circumstantial, and 
given in .a learned agey when its falsity 
mighl easily have been detected. 
(II.) After these preliminaries, establishing the 

genuineness and authenticity of the books, it 

remains now to present the argument. 
(Ai) From miracles. 

(1.) (Chap. XV.) Their reality proved, 
(a.) Definition of a true miracle, 
(b.) Claims of Scriptural miracles to be 
considered true, illustrated — 
1. As to those of Moses. Darkness, 



22 AxVALYSIS OF 

destruction of first-born, passage of 
Red Sea, falling of manna. 
2. As to those of Christ. Illustrated 
especially by the greatest miracle, 
the RESURRECTION, in regard to 
which it is shown, 

a. That Christ was really dead, 

b. That the body was missing. That 

c. Every attempt to account for (b,) 
except on the supposition of a 
resurrection, is absurd^ and 

d. That the story was confirmed by 
the subsequent testimony and con- 
duct of the disciples. 

(2.) (Chap, xvi.) Objections answered, 
(a.) It is asserted that miracles have 
been wrought in support of other doc- 
trines. 
I. On \hQ authority of Scripture. For, 
it is said, 
(1.) That Scripture gives instances 
of such: e. g., of magicians in 
opposition to Moses, and the 
raising of Samuel by the witch 
of Endor, etc. 

1 . As to the feats of the magi- 
cians, it is to be noticed, 1 . That 
they were professed wonder- 



l^HMW' 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 23 

workers ; 2. That they could 
imitate but three of Moses' 
miracles ; 3, That their works 
were wrought to maintain the 
equality of their idols with Je- 
hovah, Two explanations are 
given. 

1. Some suppose these were 
exercises of legerdemain. 

2. Our author admits a super- 
natural evil agency : which 
is not unreasonable, inas- 
much as the design was, 
not to disprove the divinity 
of Jehovah, but to maintain 
their own authority. 

2. As to the witch of Endor, and 
Satan's bearing our Lord 
through the air : — Granting 
these events to have been 
miraculous, it cannot be shown 
that they were wrought in 
opposition to a divine mission. 
2.) That Scripture assumes the 

possibility of such. Deut. xiii, 1 ; 

Matt, xxiv, 24 ; 2 Thess. ii, 8, 9. 

1. Notice the nature and work 
of Satan. — Six points. 



24 ANALYSIS OF 

2. Observe the limitations of the 
power oieVil spirits, four points, 
(1.) No work of creation. 
(2.) No power of life and 
death. (3.) No knowledge of 
future events. (4.) No certain 
knowledge of the thoughts of 
men. 

3. Apply these considerations 
to show 

(1.) That no real miracle can 
be performed in opposition 
to the truth. Illustrated, 
(1.) By the case of the 

Egyptian magi. 
(2.) By that of false Christs, 
&c. 
(2.) Nor any prophecy be 
uttered implying certain 
knowledge of future events : 
though great sagacity may 
be exhibited. 
N. B. No evidence recorded in 
favour of falsehood that might 
not readily be refuted on the 
spot by counter evidence. 
II. On the authority of prof ane writers, 
(P. 168.) Miracles of Aristeas, 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 25 

Pythagoras, Alexander, Ves- 
pasian, Apollonius Tyanaeus, 
and the Romish Church, 
(a.) These pretended miracles are 

all deficient in evidence. 
(b.) They are insulated and desti- 
tute of any reasonable object : 
while the miracles of Scripture 
combine for the establishment 
of one system. 
(B.) From prophecy. 

(1.) (Chap, xvii.) Their reality proved. 
(a.) Preliminary considerations. 

1. The instances are numerous. 

2. Many have clearly come to pass, 

3. They all tend to one great end, 

4. This last characteristic is peculiar 
to the Scripture prophecies. 

5. There is no obscurity in them that 
can be a just ground for cavil. 

6. The double sense of prophecy, so 
far from being an objection, is a 
confirmation of the infinite wisdom 
that inspired it. 

(b.) Examples of such predictions. (P. 
181, et seq.) 

1 . The prediction to Adam of the pro- 
tracted conflict between the serpent 



26 ANALYSIS OF 

and the seed of the woman^ with the 
ultimate triumph of the latter. 

2. Jacob's prediction respecting the 
time when Shiloh should come. 

3. Predictions respecting the Jewish 
nation^y'iz. : — (1 .) Their apostacies. 
(2.) Their punishments. (3.) Their 
restoration. 

4. Predictions respecting the Messiah. 
( 1 .) Upward of one hundred distinct 

predictions as to his birth, life, 
sufferings, death, and resurrec- 
tion. 
(2.) Wonderful prophecy, espe- 
cially, contained in Isaiah liii. 
(2.) (Chap, xviii.) Objections answered, 
(a.) It is objected to some of the pro- 
phecies, that they were written after 
the event. 
This cannot be sustained : illustrated 
as to Isaiah and Daniel. 
(b.) The Scripture prophecies are com- 
pared to the heathen oracles. 
Let us take the Delphic oracle for an 
example. Of this we say, 

1. None of its predictions eVfer went 
deep into futurity . 

2. Its responses were ambiguous. 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 27 

3. Venal and servile, it was easily cor- 
rupted. None of which can be al- 
leged of Scripture prophecies. 

(c.) The character of the prophets is 
aspersed. 
E. g., Balaam, and Jewish false pro- 
phets » Singular proceeding to con- 
demn the true on account of the 
false, who were not received by 
the Jews themselves. 

(d.) It is asserted that some of the pro- 
phecies have failed. 

1. Promise to Abraham. Ans. But 
this was fulfilled in the time of 
David and Solomon. 

2. Promise of great wealth and do- 
minion to the Jews. {Voltaire.) 
Ans. Civil blessings promised con- 
ditionally, and spiritual blessings 
generally predicted under figures 
of speech. 

3. Prediction of Isaiah to Ahaz. Ans. 
This was fulfilled. 

4. Prophecy of Jeremiah to Zede- 
kiah. Ans. This was fulfilled in 
all particulars, as far as we know. 

5. That of Ezekiel respecting the de- 
solation of Egypt. Ans. We know 



28 ANALYSIS OF 

not that it has not been fulfilled : 
and the very same prophecy con- 
tains a prediction that has been re- 
markably accomplished. (P. 202.) 
(e.) Sundry actions of the prophets have 
been ridiculed. Ans. They were ap- 
propriate to the occasions, and in ac- 
cordance with primitive and oriental 
usage. 



11. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 

Notice two preliminaries. 
(1.) The distinction between rational and au- 
thenticating evidence. 
(2.) Those doctrines which have no rational 
evidence do not suffer in authority on 
that account. 
We have now to consider, 
(A.) The excellence and beneficial ten- 
dency OF the doctrines of Scrip- 
ture. Among which are 
a.) The existence of God — his character^ at- 
tributes, &c. 
b.) The moral condition of man: viz. 

1 . The race is absolutely vicious. 

2, And vicious in consequence of a moral 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 29 

taint in their nature : for the evil is not 
to be accounted for by the influence of 
education or example^ as some vainly say. 
3. The divine government, in regard to man, 
is of a mixed character, 
c.) The atonement. Doctrine much objected 
to, as being deficient in rational evi- 
dence. The Christian doctrine of atone- 
ment is grounded on 

1. Future punishment, which is 

2. Unlimited, for which two arguments 
may be assigned. (1.) Present analo- 
gies. (2.) Doctrine of immortality. 

3. The problem of the possibility of par- 
don, without such a relaxation of the 
divine government as would effectually 
nullify it, can only be solved by this 
great doctrine. Repentance and re- 
formation are not only unavailing, but 

. would, from the nature of the case, be 
impracticable. Illustration, Zaleucus. 
d.) Doctrine of the influence of the Holy 
Spirit. 

1. ^0 physical objection to this doctrine. 

2. No moral objection. Free agency not 
destroyed. 

3. It is adapted to the moral destitution of 
man. 



30 ANALYSIS OF 

4. It presents an affecting view of the divine 
character. 

5. It elevates our aspirations^ and encour- 
ages us to the performance of the most 
difficult duties. 

This branch of the internal evidence may be 

properly closed by noticing 
e.) The v^onderful agreement in doctrine 
among the writers, though numerous, 
and writing at different periods. 
(B.) Moral tendency of the Scriptures. 
(Pp. 225-30.) 
a.) It has been asserted that the Bihle has an 
immoral tendency, because it records the 
failings of some of its leading characters ! 
Answered : — These frailties are always 
recorded for admonition ; illustrated by 
David's case. 
N. B. The moral chararacters of Blount, 
Tyndal, Hobbes, Voltaire, &c., not very honour- 
able to the cause which they espouse. 

b.) Compare Pagan morality with that of the 
Scriptures. 

1. Great moral qualities attributed to the 
divine Being were abstract with them ; 
but in Christ they are all exemplified. 

2. No authority for moral rules dimong Pa- 
gans. 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 31 

3. Their apprehension of moral principles 
was indistinct, 

4. The same writers among heathen are 
of a lower grade than among Christians. 
(P. 229.) 

5. Beauty and symmetry of the Christian 
morals. Wesley. Taylor. 

(C.) Style and manner of the sacred 

WRITERS. 

a.) Style^ various, as it should be, being the 
productions of different individuals, in dif- 
ferent ages. Marsh. Michaelis. 

b.) Manner, artless and natural, possessing 
all the simplicity of truth. 



III. COLLATERAL EVIDENCE. 

(A.) Marvellous diffusion of Christiani- 
ty, especially during the first three cen- 
turies, confirmed by Tacitus, Pliny, Justin, 
Tertullian, Origen, until A. D. 300, when 
Christianity became the established religion 
of the Roman empire. 

(B.) Actual effect produced upon man- 
kind. Idolatry. Immorality. Infanticide. 
Condition of woman. 



32 ANALYSIS OF 

IV. MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 

Preliminary remarks. (Chap, xx.) 

1. Objections are often raised in great igno- 
rance of the volume itself. 

2. Hasty theories have been constructed, 
which have been found or thought to con- 
tradict the Scriptures ; thus Deism arose 
in the sixteenth century in France, and in 
the seventeenth in England. 

3. Herbert, Hobbes, Shaftesbury, and 
Hume, the chief English infidels : and the 
great principle of error with them all, is 
that of Herbert of Cherbury, viz., " the 
sufficiency of our natural faculties to form a 
religion for ourselves, and to decide upon the 
merits of revealed truth.'''' 

I, Objections on moral grounds. 

1 . The command to the Israelites to extermi- 

nate the Canaanites. 
Ans. It cannot be proved inconsistent with 
the character of God to employ human 
agents, as well as natural, in such a 
work. 

2. Law in Deuteronomy authorizing parents 

to accuse their children, &c. 
Ans. In fact this was a merciful regula- 
tion. 



WATSO.N'S INSTITUTES. 33 

3. Intentional offering of Isaac by Abraham. 
Ans. (1.) Abraham had no doubt of the di- 
vine command. 

(2.) He obeyed, in faith that God 
would raise his son. 

4. Indelicacy and immodesty have been 

charged upon the Scriptnres. 
Ans. (1.) These sins are everywhere de- 
nounced as offensive to God. 
(2.) The passages alluded to are ge- 

nerally prohibitions of crime. 
(3.) The simplicity of early manners 
is to be considered. 
Several others might be adduced, but a little 
skill in the languages and antiquities of Scrip- 
ture will always clear up the main difficulties. 
II. Objections on philosophical grounds. (P. 241.) 
1. Infidels are fond of contrasting (what they 
call) the simj)licity oi the book of nature 
with the mystery of the book of God. 
Ans. (1.) Many doctrines and duties are 
comprehensible. 
(2.) Facts may be revealed and yet 
be incomprehensible : e. g., it is 
tevealed that God is omnipresent^ 
but not how he is so, &c. 
(3.) But even in their boasted natural 
philosophy, revelation and mystery 



34 ANALYSIS OF 

go hand in hand. The real causes 
of the phenomena named gravita- 
tion, cohesion, evaporation, &c., 
are unknown ; and even in pure 
mathematics, such incomprehensi- 
bles occur. 

2. From the minuteness of the earth as con- 
trasted with the vastness of the material uni- 
verse, infidelity argues the insignificance 
of man ; thence the improbability of re- 
demption. 

Answered, (1.) By Dr. Beatty. (2.) By 
Granville Penn. 

3. Objections are brought against the Mosaic 
chronology from two sources : 

(1.) The chronology of ancient nations. 

(2.) The structure of the earth. 

As to the (1) class, these ancient chrono- 
logies are rapidly losing character, 
especially the Hindoo and Chinese, 
which make the greatest pretensions 
to antiquity. No reliance whatever 
is placed upon them. 
As to the (2) geological objection, two 
solutions have been offered. 

1 . That the days of the Mosaic history 
are indefinite periods. 

2. That an indefinite time elapsed 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 35 

between the beginning spoken of in 
Genesis v, 1 , and the work of the 
six days. 
To both these solutions our author objects, 
and prefers the views of Mr. Granville Penn. 

4. It is objected that liglit was created on the 

first day, and the sun not until the 
fourth. 
Several solutions. 

5. Objections to Mosaic account of the 
deluge. 

6. Objections as to number of animals taken 
into the ark with Noah. 



36 ANALYSIS OF 



PART SECOND. 

Doctrines of the Holy Scriptures. 
Outline. 

I. Doctrines relating to God. 

(A.) Existence : (Ch. i.) 

(B.) Attributes : (Ch. ii-vii.) 
(C.) Persons : 

(I.) Doctrine of Trmity, (Ch. viii, ix.) 

(II.) Divinity of Christ, (Ch. x-xv.) 

(III.) Humanity of Christ, (Ch. xvi.) 
(IV.) Personality and Deity 

of the Holy Ghost, (Ch. xvii.) 

II. Doctrines relating to man. 

(A.) Original sin : (Ch. xviii.) 

(B.) Redemption : 

( I . ) Principles of ( C h . xix-xxii. ) 

(II.) Benefits of (Ch. xxiii-xxix.) 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 37 



I. DOCTRU^fES RELATING TO GOD.— (Ch. i-xvii.) 

(A.) Existence of God. — (Ch. i.) 

(I.) Source of the idea. 

I. From the sacred writings. 

1. From the names of God as recorded in 
Scripture : 

2. From the actions which the Scriptures 
ascribe to him : 

3. From the attributes with which they in- 
vest him. 

II. From the sacred writings alone. (P. 267.) 

1. The language of the Christian philo- 
sophers, in regard to the Deity, is very 
different from the inconsistent and gro- 
velling views of the sages of antiquity : 
e. g., Barrow, Pearson, Laioson, and New- 
ton, are quoted. 

2. The question of man's ability to disco- 
ver the existence of a first cause cannot 
be determined by matter of fact. 

3. Nor can the abstract probability of such 
discovery be sustained. (P. 271.) 

(1.) Uneducated man is a creature of 
appetite : — but he cannot be educated 
without civilization and society : — 
these have never existed, and we may 



38 ANALYSIS OF 

safely say, can never exist without a 
religious basis : but by the hypothesis, 
that basis, viz., the idea of God, is 
wanting. 

(2.) (P. 273.) Clear as the argument a 
posteriori now appears to us, yet all 
history shows that the eternity of mat- 
ter has been an impassable barrier in 
the way of human reasoning, unaided 
by revelation, in the attempt to esta- 
blish a divine existence. 

(3.) (P. 274.) The doctrine of innate 
ideas is exploded. 
(II.) Proofs. (Pp. 275-325.) 
I. Preliminary observations. 

(a.) On the relation of cause and effect, 

1. The principle is, that nothing exists 
or comes to pass without an efficient 

CAUSE. 

2. Hume (probably following Hobbes) 
objects to this principle on the ground, 
that what we suppose to be necessary 
connections, in nature, are or may be 
only habitual sequences, and that we 
cannot demonstrate them to be other- 
wise. 

3. Answered by Dugald Stewart, who 
admits Hume's doctrine indeed, but 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 39 

nullifies its evil results, by his dis- 
tinction between efficient and physical 
causes. But 
4. (P. 279.) Our author supposes the 
true state of the case to be 
(1.) That there are efficient causes, 
and that the relation between them 
and their effects is necessary. 
(2.) That there are physical causes, 
the relation between which and 
their effects is necessary in this 
sense, viz., that God has establish- 
ed a certain order in nature, by 
which his own efficiency exerts it- 
self. This is a very different no- 
tion from the unsatisfactory one of 
habitual sequence. 
(b.) On the distinction between argument 
a priori and a posteriori. Superiority of 
the latter in this case. 
II. Proof of the existence of God. 

1. Lockers argument. " I exist: I did not 
always exist : whatever begins to exist 
must have a cause : that cause must be 
adequate : this adequate cause is unlimit- 
ed : it must be God." 

2. Howe's argument: the same, but more 
expanded, thus : 



40 ANALYSIS OF 

(1) Somewhat hath existed from eter- 
nity : hence (2) must be uncaused : 
hence (3) independent : hence (4) ne- 
cessary : hence (5) self-active, and 
hence (6) originally vital, and the 
source of all life. 
III. VrooioUYie intelligence o{Godi. (P. 286.) 

1. Dr. Sam. Clarke's argument from the 
intelligence of man, and the variety, or- 
der, excellence, and contrivance of things : 
and especially from the existence of 
motion. 

2. (P. 291.) This last (viz. motion) ex- 
panded, from Howe^s Living Temple. 

3. The basis of natural theology as 
found in Howe's Living Temple, — 
*' Whatever exists, with the marks of 
vnsdom and design upon it, had a wise 
and designing cause." (P. 293.) Illus- 
trations, 

(1.) A voatch, presented to an observer 
for the first time. 

(2.) Much more, the heavenly bodies ex- 
hibit wisdom and contrivance. 

(3.) The human frame especially. 

1 . The double members and their uses. 

2. The eye with its curious optical 
mechanism. 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 41 

3. The spine : and besides the frame 
of the body, 
(4.) Its animal functions ^diXidi those of ter- 
restrial creatures, viz. : (Pp. 304-306:) 

1. Growth. 

2. Nutrition. 

3. Spontaneous motion. 

4. Sensation. 

(5.) Intellectual powers of man. (P. 306.) 
4. The instances of the watch, the eye, the 
double organs, and the spine, largely 
illustrated by quotations from Paley's 
Natural Theology. (Pp. 307-322.) 
IV. Proof of the personality of God. (Pp. 
322-325.) 
(III.) Remarks. 

I. Absurdity of Atheism. 

1. As to the eternity of the world. 

2. As to the eternity o{ unorganized matter. 

3. Some modern schemes of Atheism, viz. : 
(1.) Buffon's organic molecules. 

(2.) The system of appetencies. No 
other answer necessary than that these 
schemes are entirely wanting in evi- 
dence. 

II. Character of the argument a priori. (Pp. 
330-335.) 

1. It is unsatisfactory and tends to lead 



42 ANALYSIS OF 

men away from the sure argument, point- 
ed out by Scripture, from " the things 
which do appear,''^ 

2. The existence itself of a supreme Be- 
ing can hardly be shown by this method. 
Indeed, even Dr. S. Clarke first proves 
the existence of " one unchangeable and 
independent Being," a posteriori. 

3. Some objections to Dr. S. Clarke's 
view of the necessary existence of the 
supreme Being. 

The being of God is necessary^ because it 
is underived, not underived because it is 
necessary. 

(B.) Attributes of God. (Ch. ii-vii.) 
I. Unity. (Ch. ii.) 

(I.) Scriptural testimony. Deut.vi,4; iv,35,&c. 

1. The Scriptural notion is, that God is 
a pure simple being : so one, that there 
are no other gods : so one, that there can 
he no other gods. 

2. If we admit the Scriptures, we admit a 
Deity: if we admit one God, we exclude 
all others. 

(II.) Evidence from reason. 

1. A priori argument is here unobjection- 
able, if logical. 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 43 

(1.) Dr. Clarke's shown to be useless. 
(2.) WoUastoris, Wilkins\ and Pear- 

sonh arguments stated. 
(3.) The best argument of the kind, is 
that from the idea of absolute perfec- 
tion. 
2. Proofs may be derived also from the 
works of God. 

(1.) In the harmony of the universe we 
discern but one Will and one Intelli- 
gence, and therefore but One Being. 
(2.) Uniformity of plan in the universe, 
is a proof of the unity of God. Illus- 
trations by Paley. (Pp. 340-342.) 
(III.) Importance of this doctrine. 

The unity of God the basis of all true 
religion. 
II. Spirituality. (Oh. ii.) 

(I.) Scripturul testimony : " God is a Spi- 
rit." Similar passages abound. The 
immateriality of the divine Being is im- 
portant, because of its connection with the 
? doctrine of the immortality of the human 

soul 
(II.) Evidence from reason, both as to the 
spiritual nature of God, and the unthink- 
ing nature of matter. 
1. God is intelligent, therefore God is a 



44 ANALYSIS OF 

spiritual Being, because intelligence is 
not a property of matter. For 
(1.) Unorganized matter is certainly un- 
intelligent, hence intelligence can- 
not be an essential property of mat- 
ter: but it is an essential attribute of 
Deity, hence the Deity cannot be ma- 
terial. 
(2.) Nor is intelligence the result of ma- 
terial organization, for 

1. Vegetables are unintelligent. 

2. Were intellect constantly conjoined 
with animal organization, we could 
deny the necessity of such connec- 
tion, but we deny this supposed 
constant connection, and thus take 
away the basis of Priestley's argu- 
ment. This denial is based upon 
the following 

a.) The organization of the human 
frame is often perfect after death. 
But dead men do not think, 
b.) The organism of Adam's body 
was complete before he became 
a " living soul." 
(3.) But we may be told, that the sub- 
ject supposed in the argument is a 
living organized being. This intro- 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 45 

duces a new element, viz., life, into 
•^ the argument : but 

1 . Vegetables live, and yet do not think. 

2. The organic life of Bichat is com- 
mon to animals and vegetables. 

3. The animal life is defined by Bi- 
chat, Lawrence, and even by Cu- 
vier, to be the " sum total of its 
functions of a certain class." Ab- 
surdity of this shown by quotations 
from Rennell and Barclay. 

(4.) Further proofs that matter is inca- 
pable of thought, drawn from its es- 
sential properties of extension, impene- 
tr ability, divisibility, Sic, none of 
which belong to thought. 

(5.) The notions, matter and miiid, are 
merely relative. Reid. Stewart. Im- 
materiality of brutes not denied. 
III. Eternity. (Ch. iii.) 

1. Scriptural notion, God had no beginning 
and shall have no end. " From everlast- 
ing to everlasting," &c. 

2. These representations evidently convey 
something more than the mere idea of m- 

Jinite duration. Life is essential to God; 
he lives by virtue of his own nature, which 
can be said of him alone. , . 



46 ^ ANALYSIS OF 

3. Some obscure notions of the eternity pre- 
vailed among the heathens, probably de- 
rived from the Jewish scriptures. 

4. Doctrine of the Eternal Now repudiated. 
(1.) Duration, as applied to God, is an 

extension of the same idea, as applied to 
ourselves. * 

(2.) The objection to this, (viz., that it 
would argue imperfection,) arises from 
the confounding succession in the dura- 
tion with change in the substance. 

(3.) If it be said that succession is only an 
artificial method of conceiving or mea- 
suring duration, it may be answered, that 
leagues measure the ocean, but leagues 
are not the ocean, though both leagues 
and the ocean may actually exist. 
IV. Omnipotence. (Ch. iii.) 
(I.) Scriptural testimony. 

1. Reasons why this attribute is so much 
dwelt upon by the sacred writers, viz., 
to secure the obedience, worship, and con- 
fidence of man. 

2. Mode of its exhibition in the Scrip- 
tures. 

(a.) By the fact of creation. 
(b.) By the vastncss and variety of the 
works of God. 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 47 

(c.) By the ease with which he is said 
to create and uphold all things. 

(d.) By the terrible descriptions given 
of the divine power. 

(e.) By the subjection of all intelligent 
beings to his will. 

3. The power of all these descriptions lies 
in their truth, 

4. The works of God manifestations,, but 
not the measure,, of his omnipotence. 

(II.) Only limitation to the divine power : no 
working of contradictions, or impossibili- 
ties. 
V. Omnipresence. (Ch. iii.) 

1. Scriptural testimony. 

2. Heathen notions of omnipresence : some 
striking, but all defective. 

3. Similar errors pervade the infidel philo- 
sophy of modern times. 

4. The Scriptural phrases in which this doc- 
trine is conveyed, must be taken in their 
common-sense acceptation. 

5. Illustrations of this doctrine from the ma- 
terial world, quoted from Amory and 
Paley. 

6. The a 'priori argument stated. 

7. The manner in which God is everywhere 
present, incomprehensible. 



48 AxNALYSIS OF 

VI. Omniscience. (Ch. iv.) 

(I.) Scriptural statement of the doctrine. 

1. Direct texts : " Great is the Lord, his 
understanding is infinite," &c. 

2. Argument in Psalm xciv, from the com- 
munication of knowledge to men, illus- 
trated by a quotation from Tillotson. 

3. The sacred writers refer to the works 
of God for confirmation. 

(II.) The Pagans had many fine sentiments 
in regard to the divine omniscience, but 
the 7noral of the doctrine was wanting. 

(III.) The doctrine of foreknowledge ex- 
amined. Unquestionably it is a Scriptural 
doctrine : but from its difficulty, &c., three 
theories have arisen. 

(1.) Theory of Chevalier Ramsay. " It is 
a matter of choice in God, to think of 
finite ideas." Answer to this theory, 

1. God^^'vmnipoteiice is an infinite capa- 
city, but omniscience actually compre- 
hends all things that are or can be. 

2. Choice implies a reason, and that im- 
plies knowledge of the things rejected. 

3. Some contingent actions have been 
foreknown by God, and indeed fore- 
told by his prophets. 

(2.) Theory, ** that prescience of contiu- 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 49 

gent events implies a contradiction, 
hence the absence of such prescience 
is no dishonour to God." Ans. 
(a.) This theory is defective so long as 
the Scriptures are allowed to contain 
prophecies of rewardable and punish- 
able actions, such as 

1. The long course of events con- 
nected with the destruction of 
Babylon. 

2. The contingencies involved in the 
destTuction of Jerusalem. 

(b,) The principle, that " certain pre- 
science destroys contingency ^^^ cannot 
be sustained. 1.) The manner of the 
divine prescience is indeed incom- 
prehensible, but X\iQfact is undeniably 
asserted in Scripture : but 2.) The 
principle itself is founded upon a so- 
phism, which lies in. supposing that 
contingency and certainty are opposed 
to each other : while in fact they are 
not ; but contingency and necessity. It 
is knowledge and not influence. Opin- 
ions of Dr. Sam, Clarke^ Dr. Copleston, 
and CurcellcBus. 
(3.) Theory, " that the foreknowledge of 
God must be supposed to differ so much 
4 



50 ANALYSIS OF 

from any thing of the kind in ourselves, 

that no argument respecting it can be 

grounded on our imperfect notions :" — 

maintained by Archbishop King and Dr. 

Copleston, Objections to this theory 

are, 

(a.) The difficulty is shifted^ not taken 

away, 
(b.) These notions are dangerous : — for 
if, in the language of Archbishop 
King, " we can have no proper notion 
of the faculties we ascribe to the di- 
vine Being," we have no proper reve- 
lation of the divine character at all. 
But, to examine more minutely, we 
say that this theory introduces difficult 
ties, instead of removing them ; and 

1 . It assumes that our notions of God 
are framed from the results of our 
ohservation of his works, &c., which 
is not the case :— they are derived 
from express revelation. 

2. We may form a true notion, though 
not an adequate one, of the divine 
perfections. To be incomprehensi- 
ble is not to be unintelligihle. 

3. This theory assumes that the nature 
of God is essentially different from 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 51 

the spiritual nature of man, which 
is not the doctrine of Scripture. 
4. Wherever the language of Scrip- 
ture is metaphorical, it is distinctly 
so : — so that the argument drawn 
from the ascription of bodily func- 
tions, (p. 390,) and even of human 
passions, (p. 392,) to the divine Be- 
ing, fails when applied to intellect- 
ual and moral powers, 
(c.) We say then, lastly, (p. 396,) that 
there is no incongruity between di- 
vine prescience and human freedom, 
unless infiuence be superadded to ne- 
cessitate the human will. Quotation 
from Edwards. 
VII. Immutability. (Ch. v.) 

(I.) Scriptural statement. " Of old thou hast 
laid, &c." " I am the Lord, I change not :" 
with parallel passages. 
(II.) Confirmations from observation. 

1. The stability of the general order of 
nature. 

2. The moral government of God, and 
(III.) This immutability is not temporary, but 

a sovereign, essential perfection of the 
Deity, as we learn from Scripture. He 
changes not, because he is " the Lord,'" 



52 ANALYSIS OF 

(IV.) The divine immutability is not contra- 
dicted, but confirmed, by the variety of his 
operatiojis ^regards and affections ^Xo\vdiXdi the 
same creatures under different circum- 
stances. 

(V.) Cautions are necessary against certain 
speculations on the divine immutability — 
such as, that there are no emotions and no 
succession of ideas with God, — or, accord- 
ing to Ridgely, that " God's knowledge is 
independent of the object known." 

1. In these, the distinction between things 
possible and things actual is overlooked. 

2. And also the distinction between God's 
knowledge of all possible things, and of 
those things to which he determined, 
before the creation, to give actual ex- 
istence. 

(VI.) The liberty of God is closely allied to 
his immutability, and a proper idea of this 
will correct the false notions above al- 
luded to. 
VIII. Wisdom. (Ch. v.) 

(I.) The Scriptures testify abundantly to the 
nice application of God's knowledge to 
secure his own ends. 

(II.) A few of the characters of the divine 
wisdom, as thus exhibited. 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 53 

1. It acts for worthy ends. 

2. Its means are simple : great effects from 
few elements. 

3. Variety of equally perfect operation : 
e. g. (1.) Variety of ybr/Ti. (2.) Varie- 
ty of magnitude. 

4. The connection and dependance of the 
works of God. 

5. The means by which offending men are 
reconciled to God, — the most eminent 
manifestations of the wisdom of God. 

IX. Goodness. (Ch. vi.) 
(I.) Scriptural testimony. 

1. It is goodness of nature, an essential 
perfection of the divine character. 

2. It is efficient and inexhaustible : — it " en- 
dureth for ever." 

3. The divine Being takes pleasure in the 
exercise of it : — he " delights in mercy. ^^ 

4. Nothing, capable of happiness, comes 
from his hand, except in circumstances 
of positive felicity. 

(II.) Evidence from the natural and moral 

world. 

(1.) The dark side. 1.) Positive evils on 
the globe : volcanoes, sterility, &;c. 2.) 
Diseases and sufferings of the human 
race. 3.) Sufferings and death q{ animals. 



54 ANALYSIS OF 

(2.) The ^n^A^ side. 1.) Design of every 
contrivance essentially beneficial : e. g., 
teeth are contrived to eat, not to ache. 
But to this maybe objected (1) venom- 
ous animals, and (2) animals preying 
upon one another. 

As to (1.) So far as the animal itself 
is concerned, the contrivance is 
good. 
As to (2.) The following points are to 
be considered. 1.) Immortality on 
earth is out of the question. 2.) Is 
not death in this vi^ay better than 
decay? 3.) The system is the 
spring of motion and activity to 
brutes. 
The bright side. 2.) The happiness of 
animal existence. 3.) Many allevia- 
tions of positive evils. 4.) Many ills 
are chargeable upon man's ow^n mis- 
conduct. Consider an individual case, 
— the good circumstances about him 
far counterbalance all other. 
(3.) The theory of optimism : viz., that the 
present system is the best v^hich the na- . 
ture of things would admit. 
1 . The very principle of this hypothesis 
implies an unworthy notion of God : 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 55 

considering it (1 ) as to natural^ (2) as 
to inoral evils. 

2. We deny, then, that '' whatever is, is 
hestr We can not only conceive a 
better state of things, but can show 
that the evils of the present state do 
not necessarily exist. Sin has enter- 
ed into the world, and God is^'w^*^, as 
well as good. 

3, The state of the world exactly an- 
swers to the Scriptural representa- 
tions of the relations between man and 
God. Illustrated by quotations from 
Gisborne : L) As to the actual ap- 
pearance of the globe. 2.) By refer- 
ence to the general deluge. 3.) By 
the human frame. 4.) By the occupa- 
tions of man — farmers — shepherds — 
miners — manufacturers — merchants. 

(III.) The origin of evil (P. 428.) There are 
four leading opinions. 
1. Necessity: 2. The Manichean doctrine 
of duality: 3. The doctrine that God is 
the author of sin : and 4. That evil is 
the result of the abuse of moral free- 
dom. 
1. Refutes itself: 2. Is now given up : 3. 
Found among tbe most unguarded Calvin- 



56 ANALYSIS OF 

istic writers, but now generally abandon- 
ed : 4. Is the opinion generally adopted, 
and agrees with the Scriptural statement 
of the creation and fall of man. 
(IV.) The mercy of God is a mode of his 
goodness. 
X. Holiness. (Ch. vii.) 

Preliminary. 1. It is clear that God 
" loveth righteousness and hateth in- 
iquity." 

2. And this from some essential princi- 
ple of his nature. This principle we 
call holiness, which exhibits itself in 
two great branches, viz. : — 
(I.) Justice, 1. Character of, when particular^ 
(not universal.) 

(a.) Legislative, which determines man's 
duty and binds him to its perform- 
ance, 
(b.) Judicial or distributive, which re- 
spects rewards and punishments : and 
is either I) prcemiative, or 2) vindic- 
tive, but always impartial. 
2. Reconciled with the divine administra- 
tion. 

(a.) By the fact that man is under a dis- 
pensation of mercy, 
(b.) By the doctrine of general judgment^ 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 57 

which is grounded on that of redemp- 
tion. 
3. Inferences. 

(a.) That great offenders may prosper in 
tills life, without impeachment of God's 
government, 
(b.) That God's children may be afflict- 
ed and oppressed, 
(c.) That an administration of grace may 
be apparently unequal without injus- 
tice. But, 
(d.) As nations have no posthumous ex- 
istence, national rewards and punish- 
ments have been in all ages visible 
and striking. 
(II.) Truth, w^hich in Scripture is contem- 
plated under the two great branches of 
veracity 3,nd faithfulness. 

1. His veracity regards his word. No de- 
ception here. 

2. His faithfulness regards his engage- 
ments, which never fail. 

A few general ascriptions of excellence 
may here be noticed. 1.) God is per- 
fect. 2.) God is all-sufficient. 3.) God 
is unsearchable. Support each by Scrip- 
tural passages. 



58 ANALYSIS OF 

(C.) Persons of the Godhead. 

(I.) Doctrine of the trinity. (Ch. viii, ix.) 

I. Preliminary remarks and explanations. 

1. This doctrine cannot be demonstrated 
either a priori, or a posteriori. Attempts 
of Poiret, Kidd, &c., noticed. It rests 
entirely on Scripture. 

2. Pretensions to explain this doctrine are 
highly objectionable. 

3. Perhaps it may be admitted, that types 
and symbols of the mystery of the tri- 
nity are to be found in natural ob- 
jects. 

4. Explanation of the term person : 1.) In 
ordinary language. 2.) In a strict philo- 
sophical sense. It is not applied in the 
latter sense to the divine Being : but 
the dii^imQi persons are represented as 
having a common foundation in one be- 
ing : — the manner of the union being in- 
comprehensible. Objection to the term, 
as not being Scriptural, answered. 

5. Leading differences of opinion among 
the orthodox. Howe, Waterland, Pear- 
son, Bull. 

II. Importance of the doctrine stated, (L) Chief- 
ly in answer to Dr. Priestley. 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 59 

i . The knowledge of God is fundamental 
to religion. 

2. Dr. P. allows its necessity " to explain 
some particular texts." But we can 
show that these " texts" comprehend a 
large portion of Scripture. 

3. Our views of God as the object of our 
worship are affected. 

4. Dr. P. objects, "that no fact in nature, 
nor purpose in morals, requires this doc- 
trine." 

1.) As to the natural world, (1.) It is 
adapted to the scheme of orthodox 
Christianity, and not to Socinianism, 
which does not admit of redemption. 
(2.) The duration of the natural world, 
is another relation to theology. It was 
made for Christ. 

2.) As to morals. (1.) Morals are con- 
formity to a divine law, which must 
take its character of its author. (2.) 
Faith is obedience to command, and 
therefore part of morals. 
(II.) Importance of this doctrine, on broader 

grounds. 
1 . Our love to God, which is the substance 

of religion, is essentially affected by our 

views of this doctrine. 



60 ANALYSIS OF 

2. In other equally essential views, the 
denial of Christ's divinity essentially 
alters the Christian scheme, viz. 

1.) The doctrine oi atonement is denied 
by Socinians, though inconsistently 
admitted by Arians. 

2.) Views of the evil of sin are essen- 
tially modified. 

3.) The character of Christian experience 
essentially changed, as to repentance, 
faith, prayer, love, &c. 

4.) The religious affections of hope, trust, 
joy, &c., are all interfered with. 

5.) The language of the church of Christ 
must be altered and brought down to 
these views. 

6.) The doctrine of divine agency must 
be changed. 

3. The denial of the doctrine of the trinity 
affects the credit of the Holy Scriptures :■ 
for if this doctrine be not contained in 
them, their tendency to /Tzz-y/eacZ is obvious. 

III. Difficulties are said to attend the recep- 
tion of this doctrine. 

1 . Mere difficulty in conceiving of what is 
proper to God, forms no objection. 

2. No contradiction is implied in this great 
doctrine. 



WATSOiN'S INSTITUTES. 61 

3. The Arian and Socinian hypotheses do 
not relieve us from difficulties. 
IV. Scripture testimony. (Ch. ix.) 

Preliminary. Every argument in favour 
of the trinity flows from the principle 
of the absolute unity of God, which is 
laid down in the Scriptures with the ut- 
most solemnity, and guarded with the 
utmost care by precepts, threatenings, 
and promises. But in examining what 
the Scriptures teach concerning this 
ONE God, we find that, 

A. The i^ery names of God have plural forms 
and 'are connected with plural modes of 
speech. (P. 467.) 

Examples : Deuteronomy vi, 4 ; Aleim ; 
Adonim, &c. 

B. Three persons, and three only are spoken 
of in Scripture under divine titles. 

Ex. 1. Solemn form of Jewish benedic- 
tion. Num. vi, 24-27. 

2. The vision of Isaiah, with the allu- 
sions to it by St. John and St. Paul, 
in the New Testament. (Pp. 470-1 .) 

3. Various passages in the New Tes- 
tament might be cited — in which 
sometimes two, sometimes three, but 
never more than thr^ persons are 



62 ANALYSIS OF 

spoken of. 1 John v, 7, is laid out 

of the argument, as uncertain. 

C . The great proof on which the doctrine rests : 

— the multiplied instances in which two 

persons are spoken of, as associated with 

God in his perfections. (P. 473.) 

1. The outline of Scriptural testimony is 
given, as to the Son. 

2. The same as to the Spirit. 
Therefore, as the Scriptures uniformly de- 
clare but ONE God, and yet do throughout de- 
clare three persons divine,-— we harmonize these 
apparently opposite doctrines in the proposition 
— The three persons are one God. These 
views are maintained in the orthodox church, 
and are chargeable with no greater mystery 
than is assignable to the Scriptures. We do not 
give up the unity of God. The Socinian unity 
is a unity of one : ours is a unity of three. 

(II.) Divinity of Christ, (Ch. x-xv,) proved, 

A. By his pre-existence, (Ch. x.) 

B. Because he was the Jehovah 

OF THE Old Testament, (Ch. xi.) 

C. Because divine titles are 

ASCRIBED TO HIM, (Ch. xii.) 

D. Because divine attributes 

BELONG TO HIM, (Ch. xiii.) 



WATSOiN'S INSTITUTES. 63 

E. Because divine acts are 

ASCRIBED TO HIM, (Ch. xiv.) 

F. Because divine worship is 

PAID TO HIM, (Ch. XV.) 

A. Pre-existence of Christ. (Ch. x.) 
The pre-existence of Christy if established, 
though it does not affect the Arian^ de- 
stroys the Socinian hypothesis : hence 
both ancient and modern Socinians have 
bent all arts of interpretation against 
those passages which expressly declare 
it, of which the following are examples. 

1 . John i, 15, " He that cometh after me 
is preferred before me, for he was he- 
fore meP The Socinians interpret 
the last clause in the sense of dignity^ 
and not of time. But John uses the 
same phrase elsewhere in regard to 
priority of time. If the last referred 
to the dignity of Christ, it would have 
been ecrr^, not r\v^ — he is, not he was, 

2. The passages which express that 
Christ came down from heaven. 

(1.) The early Socinians supposed 
that Christ was translated to hea- 
ven after his birth. Unsupported 
by Scripture. 



64 ANALYSIS Oi' 

(2.) The modern Socinians conve- 
niently resolve the whole into 
figure: — 1. Ascending into hesiv en, 
2. Coming down from heaven. 

3. John vi, 62, " What and if ye shall see 
the Son of man ascend up where he was 
before ?" 

4. The phrase, to " be sent from God." 

5. John viii, 58, " Before Abraham was, 
I am." 

6. John xvii, 5, " The glory which I had 
with thee befSj»^.the world was." 

It has thus been shot^n that Christ had an 

existence previous to his incarnation^ and 

previous to the very foundation of the 

iDorld. 

B. Jesus Christ the Jehovah of the Old 

Testament. (Ch. xi.) 

In the Old Testament, we cannot fail to 
notice the frequent supernatural appear- 
ances to the ancient patriarchs and pro- 
phets. The facts cannot be disputed ; 
and in order to show their bearing upon 
the question of the divinity of Christ, 
we have three propositions to establish, 
viz. : — 

I. The person who made these appearances 
was truly a' divine person. 



WATSOxN'S INSTITUTES. 65 

1 . Proof. He bears the names of the di- 
vine Being, and was the object of 
worship to the Israelites. (1.) Ha- 
^ar in the wilderness. (2.) Abraham 
in the plains of Mamre. (3.) Isaac 
and Jacob. (4.) The same Jehovah 
visible to Moses. The same Jehovah 
attended the Israelites. 

2. Objections. (1.) This personage is 
called " the Angel of the Lord." Ans. 
Angel is a designation of office^ not 
of nature* .-^he collation of a few 
passages^ill show that Jehovah and 
the Angel of the Lord, in this eminent 
•sense, were the same person. (2.) The 
Arian hypothesis is that the appear- 
ing angel was Christ, personating the 
Deity. Shown to be untenable. (3.) 
The Socinian notion is the marvellous 
doctrine of occasional personality, to 
use Priestley's term. Mysterious and 
absurd enough. 

II. This divine person was not God the 

Father. 

1. The argument from the passage, 
" No man hath seen God,^^ &c., is 
plausible, but cannot be depended 
upon. 



66 ANALYSIS OF 

2. The real argument is from the appel- 
lation angel. 
III. This divine person was the pro^ 
mised Messiah, and consequently Jesus 
Christ. 
(1.) Scriptural proof . 

1 . Jeremiah asserts, that the new co- 
venant was to be made by the same 
person who made the old. " Be- 
hold the days come^'' &c. 

2. Malachi's striking prediction, "J5c- 
hold I will send my messenger, ^^ &c. 
This prophecy is expressly applied 
to Christ, by St. Mark. 

3. " The voice of him that crieth^'' &c. 
Here the application of the pro- 
phecy was expressly made to our 
Lord by the Baptist. 

4. " Behold a virgin shall conceive,^"* 
&c. " Unto us a child is born.^^ 

5. Psalm Ixviii is applied by St. Paul 
to Christ. 

6. Christ is represented by St. Peter, 
as preaching by his Spirit in the 
days of Noah. 

7. St. Paul ; 1 Cor., " Neither let us 
tempt Christ as some of them also 
temptedy 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 67 

8. Heb. xii, 25, 26, '* See that ye re- 
fuse not him that speakethJ^ 
(2.) Confirmation by the testimony of the 
fathers, viz. : — Justin Martyr, Ire- 
naeus, Tertullian, Clemens, Origen, 
Theophilus, Cyprian, Hilary, and 
Basil. 
(3.) Tioo objections to this doctrine from 
- Scripture are easily answered. 

1. " God who at sundry times^^ &c. 
Ans. We do allow the occasional 
manifestation of the Father to be 
recorded in the Old Testament. 

2. " If the word spoken hy angels, ^^ &c. 
Here the apostle refers to the judi- 
cial law which was given through 
angels. They were not the authors 
of the law, but the medium of its 
communication to men. 

. Divine titles ascribed to Christ. 
(Ch. xii.) 

If the titles given to Christ in the Scrip- 
tures are such as can designate a divine 
Being, then is Christ divine, otherwise 
the Scriptures deceive. 
I. The title Jehovah. 

Instances of this have already been given, 
and indeed Socinians admit the fact 



68 ANALYSIS OF 

by their attempts to explain it away : — 
thus Dr. Priestley asserts that the name 
Jehovah is sometimes given io places. 
Miserable pretence. Force of the ar- 
gument distinctly stated. (P. 507.) 

II. The title Lord, {Kv^tog,) which is ap- 
plied to Christ in the New Testament, 
is in its highest sense universally allowed 
to belong to God : — and we can show, 
that it is applied to Christ in this highest 
sense, 

1. Both by the LXX. and the writers 
of the New Testament, it is the term 
by which the name Jehovah is trans- 
lated. (P. 508.) 

2. When the title is not employed in the 
New Testament to render the name 
Jehovah, it is still manifest, by the 
context, that the writers consider- 
ed and used it as a divine title. 
(P. 510.) 

III. The title God. It is admitted even 
by Socinians, that Jesus Christ is called 
God. We have then to show 

1. That in its highest sense, the term 
God involves the notion of absolute 
divinity. Sir I. Newton and Dr. S. 
Clarke consider it a relative term, im- 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 69 

porting, strictly, nothing more than 

doininion. 

Ans. (1.) By Dr. Waterland. (2.) By 
Dr. Randolph. 
2 . That the term is found used of Christ 

in this highest sense. (P. 514.) 

(1.) Matt, i, 23, " Emanuel — God 
with us." The Socinians object to 
this passage, 1.) That it is of doubt- 
ful authority, — but this objection 
rests on (confessedly) a narrow- 
foundation. 2.) That the divinity 
of Christ can no more be argued 
from the name Emanuel, than the 
divinity of Eli, whose name signi- 
fies " my God." But this was the 
common name of Eli, — not so Ema- 
nuel, which was a descriptive title, 
given by revelation. 

(2.) Lukei,16, 17, "And many of the 
children of Israel shall he turn to 
the Lord their God," &c. 

(3.) John i, 1 , " In the beginning was 
the Word, and the Word was with 
God, and the Word was God," &c. 
1.) The Logos in this passage is 
called God in the highest sense. 
Three reasons. 2.) Criticism on 



70 ANALYSIS OF 

the Greek article, annexed by Dr. 
Middleton. 3.) Socinians assert 
that ylvofjiac never signifies to cre- 
ate. Ans. It is thus used in the fol- 
lowing passages: Heb. iv, 3 ; Heb. 
xi, 3 ; Jas. iii,9. 4.) They translate 
the passage also, " All things were 
made/orhim." This interpretation 
effectually destroys the other. But 
dtd, with a genitive, denotes not 
the Jinalj but the efficient cause. 

(4.) John XX, 28, " Thomas answer- 
ed ... . my Lord and my God." 
Socinians make this a mere ejacu- 
lation ! 

(5.) Titus ii, 13, " Looking for that 
blessed hope .... great God and 
our Saviour Jesus Christ." 

(6.) Heb. i, 8, " But unto the Son he 
saith. Thy throne, O God, is for 
ever and ever." Two Socinian ob- 
jections answered. 

(7.) 1 John V, 20, " This is the true 
God and eternal life." 

(8.) Rom. ix, 5, "Whose are the 
fathers . . ... God blessed for 
ever." 1.) Four points to be noted 
in regard to this text. 2.) All at- 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 71 

tempts to weaken the force of this 
powerful passage have failed. 

IV. The title " King of Israel." The 
writers of the New Testament could not 
use this appellation in a lower sense 
than that which it holds in the Old Tes- 
tament : it is sufficient to show that it 
was understood by the Jews, to imply 
divinity. L) Nathanael's exclamation, 
and 2.) The expressions of the revilers 
at the crucifixion, are sufficient proofs 
of this, 

V. The title " Son of God," demands a 
larger notice, inasmuch as Socinians re- 
strain its significance to the mere hu- 
manity of Christ, and many who hesi- 
tate not to admit the divinity of Christ, 
coincide with the Socinians as to the 
Sonship. This subject is treated (pp. 
528-562) as follows : 

The fact is not disputed, that the title Son 
of God was applied to Christ. The 
question then is, what this title imported. 
One opinion is, 

(I.) That the title was assumed by 
Christ because of his miraculous con- 
ception. But 
1. Our Lord always permitted the 



72 ANAL VS IS OF 

Jews to consider him the son of 
Joseph. 

2. When arguing with the Jews, ex- 
pressly to establish that God was 
his Father, Christ made no refer- 
ence to the miraculous conception. 

3. Nathanael knew not but Christ was 
son of Joseph, yet called him " The 
Son of God, and the King of Is- 
rael." 

The confession of Peter, " Thou 
art the Christ, the Son of the living 
God,^^ was made without reference 
to the miraculous conception : and 
probably before that fact was made 
known to the apostles. 
(11.) Another opinion is, that the title, 
" Son of God," was simply an appel- 
lation of Messiah ; an official, not a 
personal designation. But the evan- 
gelical history fully refutes this no- 
tion, by showing that the Jews re- 
garded the title " Son of God" as 
necessarily involving a claim to divini- 
ty, but did not so regard " Messiah." 
(III.) (P. 531.) In the Old Testament, 
we find that the title, " Son of God," 
was a joeri-o/i^/ designation : that the 



WATSON'S iNSTITUTKS. 73 

Sonship was essential — but the Mes- 
siahsliip accidental. 

1. Psa. ii, " Thou art my Son, this day- 
have I begotten thee." (1.) This 
cannot be interpreted with refer- 
ence to the miraculous conception. 
(2.) Nor with reference to the re- 
surrection; for 1.) Christ was as- 
serted to be the " beloved /So/*," be- 
fore his resurrection, and 2.) Paul, 
in the Epistle to the Romans, tells 
us that the resurrection of Christ 
was the declaration of his Sonship 
— ^not the ground of it. Argument 
corroborated by a quotation from 
Witsius. 

2. Proverbs viii, 22. Solomon intro- 
duces the personal wisdom of God, 
under the same relation of a Son, 

The ancient Jewish writers speak of 
the generation of '^ Wisdom^'^ and by 
that term, mean " the Word.^' 

3. Micah v, 2, " But thou, Bethle- 
hem Ephrata," &c. This passage 
carefully distinguishes the human 
nature from the eternal generation : 
— as two goings forth are spoken of, 
1 .) A. natural one, ^'^ from Bethlehem 



74 AxNALYSIS OF 

toJudah;^^ 2.) Another and higher, 
''''from the days of eternity. '^^ 

The glosses of Priestley and others, 
which would make this passage 
refer to the promises or purpose of 
God from everlasting, are shown to 
be absurd. 

4. Prov. XXX, 4, " What is his name, 
and what is his Son^s name," &c. 
Here there is no reference to Mes- 
siahship. 

Thus the Scriptures of the Old Tes- 
tament furnished the Jews with the 
idea of a personal Son in the divine 
nature. 
(IV.) The same ideas of divine Sonship 

are suggested in the New Testament, 

(P. 539.) 

1. " When Jesus was baptized .... 
This is my beloved Son, in whom I 
am well pleased." (1 .) This name, 
Son of God, was not here given 
with reference to the resurrection. 
(2.) Nor with reference to the Mes- 
siahship; nor (3.) With reference to 
the miraculous conception, (P. 540.) 
It must follow then that Christ 
was, in a higher nature than his 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 75 

human, and for a higher reason 
than an oficial one, the " Son of 
God." 

2. The epithet, " only begotten, ^^ affords 
further proof of the Sonship of 
Christ in his divine nature. (P. 542.) 

3. Those passages which declare that 
all things were made by the Son" 
and that God " sent his Son,''^ im- 
ply that the Creator was the Son 
of God before he was sent into the 
world. (P. 543.) 

It is assumed, but not proved, by some, 
that the title Son is thus applied 
by a mere interchange of titles be- 
tween the human and divine na- 
ture. 

4. Those passages which connect the 
title " Son" immediately, and hy way 
of eminence, with the divinity, re- 
main to be considered. (P. 545.) 
Such are — " My Father worketh 
hitherto, and I work," John v, 17. — 
" I and my Father are one," John 
X, 30.— " Art thou the Son of God ?" 
Ans. by Christ. " Ye say that I 
am." 

5. In the apostolic writings, we find 



76 ANALYSIS OF 

equal proof that the title " Son of 
God" was used even by way of 
opposition to the human nature. 
(1.) Rom. i, 3, 4, " Declared to be 
the Son of God with power," &c. 
(2.) The apostle's argument in the 
first chapter of Epistle to Hebrews. 
(3.) Rom. viii, 3, " God sending 
his own Son in the likeness of sin- 
ful flesh." (4.) " Moses was faith- 
ful as a servant, but Christ as a 
Son." (5.) All those passages in 
which \h.e first person is called the 
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
Recapitulation of the argument. (Pp, 
553, 554.) 
(V.) Importance of the admission of the 
eternal filiation of our Lord. (P. 554.) 
Some divines, believing the divinity of 
Christ, have yet opposed the eternal 
Sonship — but they have nearly, if not 
quite, adopted Unitarian modes of in- 
terpretation : and on a point confess- 
edly fundamental, they differ from the 
opinions held by the orthodox church 
in all ages. The following conse- 
quences of denying the divine filiation 
of Christ are worthy of note ; 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 77 

1 . A loose method of interpretation. 

2. The destruction of all relation 
among the persons of the Godhead. 

3. The loss of the Scriptural idea 
that the Father is the fountain of 
Deity. 

4. The same of the perfect equality, 
and yet subordination of the Son. 

5. The overthrow of the doctrine of 
the love of the Father, in the gift 
of his Son. Episcopius's argument. 

(VI.) Objections to the divine Sonship 
considered. (P. 558-562.) 
VI. The title Word. (P. 562.) Used prin- 
cipally by the evangelist John. Two 
inquiries arise here, viz. 
I. Whence the evangelist drew the use of 
this appellation ? Ans. 
(1.) From the Scriptures of the Old 
Testament : by quotations from 
which it is shown to be a theologi- 
cal and not a philosophic title : and 
one which had received the stamp 
of inspiration. a. Genesis xv, 1. 
b. Psa. xviii, 30. c. 1 Sam. iii, 21. 
d. 2 Samuel vii, 21 ; 1 Chronicles 
xvii, 19. 
(2.) The Tar gums further evince the 



78 ANALYSIS OF 

theological origin of this appella- 
tion. Illustrated by a number of 
quotations and references. (Pp. 
564-7.) 
(3.) Philo and the philosophic Jews, 
then, may be spared in this inquiry, 
but it can be shown, 1. That if Philo 
possessed the idea of a personal 
Logos, he did not derive it from 
Plato. 2. That he did derive it 
from the established theology of his 
nation. (Pp. 568-571.) 

II. What reasons led the evangelist to 
adopt this appellation ? (P. 572.) 

It is supposed that John wrote with a 
view to the suppression of the Gnos- 
tic heresy : in order to afford the 
clearest refutation of those who de- 
nied the pre-existence of Christ. 

III. Argument from its use^ against So- 
cinianism. (P. 575.) 

1. St. John says, the Logos " was that 
light, but John Baptist was not." 
Here is a parallel between two per- 
sons — not between a person and an 
attribute. 

2. The Logos became man.^ But 
how could an attribute become man ? 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 79 

The personality of the Logos being 
established, his divinity follows of 
course. 

D. Christ possessed of divine attributes, 

(Ch. xiii.) 

God is made known to us by his attributes. 

Should, then, the same attributes be found 

ascribed in Scripture to Christ, we infer 

directly, that Christ is God. 

I. Eternity is ascribed to Christ. (1.) Isaiah 
ix, 6. (2.) Rev. i,. 17, 18. (3.) Rev. i, 8. 
(4.) Hebrews xiii, 8. (5.) Hebrews i, 10-12. 
(6.) "Eternal life." 

II. Omnipresence is ascribed to him. (1.) "No 
man hath ascended up to heaven," &c. 
(2.) " Where two or three are gathered to- 
gether," &c. (3.) " Lo, I am with you al- 
ways," <fcc. (4.) "By him all things consist." 

III. Omniscience is ascribed to Christ. Two 
kinds of knowledge peculiar to God. 

1. A perfect knowledge of the thoughts and 
intents of the human heart. This is ex- 
pressly attributed to Christ. (1.) " He 
knew what was in manT (2.) The word 
of God is a discerner of the thouo^hts and 
intents of the heart. (3.) Interpretation 
of Mark xiii, 32. 



80 ANALYSIS OF 

2 The knowledge of futurity. This is also 
ascribed to Christ, John vi, 64, and xiii, 11, 
and all the predictions uttered by him, and 
which are nowhere referred by him to 
inspiration, are in proof of his possessing 
this attribute. 
IV. Omnipotence is ascribed to Christ. (1 .) Rev. 
1, 8. (2.) To the Jews he said, **What 
things soever the Father doeth, these also 
doeth the Son likewise." (3.) All the Scrip- 
tural argument from the ascription of divine 
attributes to Christ, ffiay be summed up with 
his own remarkable declaration, " All things 
which the Father hath are mine," John 
xvi, 15. 

E. Divine acts are ascribed to Christ. 
(Ch. xiv.) 
I. Creation. Socinians admit that creation out 
of nothing is the work of a divine power, 
and therefore interpret those passages of 
the New Testament which speak of Christ 
as a creator, — as referring to a moral crea- 
tion, or to the regulation of all things in 
the evangelical dispensation. Absurdity of 
this. 

1. The creation of "all things" is ascribed 
to Christ, in the introduction to St. John's 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 81 

Gospel. This can only be understood of 
a physical creation. 

2. *' By whom also he made the worlds," Heb. 
i, 2. Two Socinian glosses are offered. 
(1.) To render the words, "/or whom also," 

&c. But 6ca with a genitive, never sig- 
nifies the Jlnal cause, setting aside the 
absurdity of the worlds being made for 
a mere man. 
(2.) To understand " the worlds" — rovg 
aiG)vag — for the gospel dispensation ; — ■ 
but the same phrase is used in the 
eleventh chapter, — where it can only 
be understood of a physical creation : — 
and in the close of the first chapter, the 
apostle reiterates the doctrine of the 
creation of the world by Jesus Christ. 

3. Coloss. i, 15-17, "Who is the image of 
the invisible God, the first-born of every 
creature: for by him were all things 
created," (fee. 

Socinian gloss. — " Here is meant the great 
change introduced into the moral world by 
the dispensation of the gospel." 
(1 .) The Arian notion, that by " first-born," 
is meant " first created," is easily re- 
futed. As to date of his being, he was 
" before all created things." — As to the 
6 



82 ANALYSIS OF 

manner of it, he was by generation — not 
creation, 
(2.) As for the Socinian gloss, it makes 
the apostle say, that Christ was the first-^ 
made member of the Christian church^*' 
and the reason for this is, that he made 
the church ! 

II. T\\Q preservation of the universal frame of 
things is ascribed to Christ. 

III. The final destruction of material nature is '4 
also expressly attributed to him. 

IV. Our Lord claims, generally, to perform the -^ 
works of his Father : also, to possess origin* 1^ 
nal miraculous powers. ' -■■■/^ ^ 

V. He promises to send the Holy Spirit. *fl 

VI. The forgiveness of sins, unquestionably a 
peculiar act of Deity, was claimed by^ Christ, 

F. Divine worship paid to Christ. (ChVxv.) 
(a.) The fact established. (Pp. 596-606.) 

I. Prior to his ascension. »t2 
1.) The case of the leper. ^ 2.^ id 

man. 3.) The disciples. 
N. B. Gur Lord did not receive these acts • 
of worship as a civil ruler. r^^^^" 

II. Subsequent to his ascension. " •' ^ 
1.) Luke xxiv, 51, 52, ^' He was* y 

from them, and carried up into hf^aven, 



WATSON'S Ix\STITUTES. 83 

a7id they loorsliipped him,''^ <&c. 2.) The 
prayer of the apostles, when filling up 
the place of Judas. 3.) Supplications 
of Stephen, the protomartyr. Futility 
of the Socinian gloss, and that of Dr. 
Priesdey. 4.) Paul's prayer, when 
afflicted with the '' thorn in the flesh." 
5.) Paul's prayer in behalf of the Thes- 
salonians. 
' III. Adoration of Christ among heavenly be- 

ings. 

1.) "Let all the angels of God worship 
him," Psa. xcvii. Horsley's Remarks. 
2.) Psalm Ixxii. 3.) The book of Re- 
velation. 
IV. All the doxologies to Christ, and all the 
benedictions made in his name, in common 
wjth those of the Father and the Holy Spi- 
' -rk, are forms of worship, 
(b.) Its hearing examined. (P. 607.) 

^>*^ ■»"' the avowed religious sentiments of 

•ties, they could not pay religious 

.lip to Christ, unless they considered 

.J:^|n a divine person. 

*^i(i^*^' ^^e collect the same from their uniform 

^ practice, 

' TJhe Arian doctrine of supreme and inferior 
worship refuted by Dr. Waterland. 



84 ANALYSIS OF 

4. The Socinians, more consistently, refuse 
to " honour the Son as . . . the Father." 
The passage, Philip, ii, 5-7, is shown to 
contain the doctrine of the divinity of 
Christ, without which it cannot be ration- 
ally interpreted. 

(III.) Person of Christ. (Ch. xvi.) 

I. Humanity of Christ. In the early church 
it was necessary to establish that Christ 
possessed a real human nature. Notice 
the following 

1. Erroneous opinions. 1.) The Gnostics 
denied the real existence of the body of 
Christ. 2.) The Apollinarian heresy re- 
jected the existence of a human soul in 
our Lord. 3.) Among those who held the 
union of the two natures in Christ, there 
were various opinions — those of theNes- 
torians, Monophisites, and Monothelites. 

2. The true sense of Scripture was given 
by the council of Chalcedon- in the fifth 
century : — with whose formula the Atha- 
nasian Creed agrees, and the orthodox 
church has adopted this creed. Cer- 
tainly, without keeping in view the 
completeness of each nature, we shall find 
h impossible, in many places, to appre- 






WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 85 

hend the sense of the Scriptures. 
(Pp. 618-19.) 

II. The UNION of the two natures of Christ in 
one hypostasis is equally essential to the 
full exposition of the Scriptures. The fol- 
lowing passages illustrate this. 

1. "The Word was made/e^A." 

2. " The church of God, purchased by his 
own blood.^^ 

Digression — to examine Dr. P. Smith's 
view of orthodox language. 

3. " For in him dwelleth all the fulness of 
the Godhead Z>oJ%," Col. ii, 9. 

4. "When he had by himself ipiirged our 
sins," (fee, Heb. i, 3. 

These and similar passages may be embraced 
under the two following classes : 1 .) Those 
which speak of the efficacy of the suffer- 
ings of Christ for remission of sins. 
2.) Those which argue from the compas- 
sion, (fee, of our Lord, to the exercise of 
confidence in him. 

III. Errors as to the person of Christ, 

1, Arianism : so called from its author 
Arius, whose characteristic tenet was 
that Christ was the first and most exalt- 
ed of creatures. 

2. Sabellianism : which, asserting the di- 



86 ANALYSIS OF 

vinity of the Son and the Spirit, and de- 
nying the personality of both, stands 
equally opposed to Arianism and Trini- 
tarianism. 
3. Socinianism, in which the two former 
are now nearly merged. This last has 
been fully refuted by the establishment 
of the Scripture doctrine of a trinity of 
divine persons in the unity of the God- 
head, which involves a refutation of the 
other two heresies. 

(IV.) Personality and Deity of the Holy 

Ghost. (Ch. xvii.) 

I. As to the manner of the Being of the Holy 
Ghost — the orthodox doctrine is, that as 
Christ is God by an eternal filiation, so 
the Spirit is God by procession from the 
Father and the Son. The doctrine of pro- 
cession rests on direct Scripture authority, 
as stated by Bishop Pearson. 

1 . " Even the Spirit of truth, which pro- 
ceedeth from the Father," John xv,26. 

2. The very expressions which are spoken 
of the Holy Spirit in relation to the Fa- 
ther, are also spoken of the same Spi- 
rit in relation to the Son. 

n. Arius regarded the Spirit as created by 



\VATSOx\*S INSTITUTES. 87 

Christ : but afterward his followers con- 
sidered the Holy Ghost as the eocerted en- 
ergy of God, which notion, with some 
modifications, is adopted by Socinians. 
III. Scriptural argument for the personality 
and Deity of the Holy Ghost, 
(a.) From the frequent association in 
Scripture of a person^ under that appel- 
lation, with two other persons, one of 
whom, " the Father,'' is by all acknow- 
ledged to be divine ; and the ascription 
to each, or to the three in union, of the 
same acts, titles, authority, and worship, 
in an equal degree. 

1. Association of the three persons in 

creative acts. 

2. Do. in the preservation of all 

things. 

3. Do. in the inspiration of the 

prophets. 

4. Do. as objects of supreme 

worship. 

5. Do. in the form of baptism, 
(b.) Some other arguments, (p. 637,) for 

(1.) The personaliti/ o( the Spirit. 1.) He 
proceeds from the Father and Son, and 
cannot therefore be either. 2.) Many 
scriptures are absurd, unless the Holy 



88 ANALYSIS OF 

Ghost be a person. 3.) The Holy 
Ghost is spoken of in many passages 
where personification is impossible. 
4.) The use of masculine pronouns 
and relatives in the Greek of the New 
Testament, in connection, with the 
neuter noun irveviia — Spirit. 
(2.) The divinity of the Spirit. 1.) He 
is the subject of blasphemy. 2.) He 
is called God. 3.) He is the source 
of inspiration. 



II. DOCTRINES RELATING TO MAN. 

(Ch. xviii-xxix.) 

(A.) Original Sin. 

I. Man's primitive condition. (Pp. 1—19.) 

II. Testimony of Scripture as to the fall of 

man. (Pp. 19-43.) 
HI. Results of the fall, to Adam and his poste^ 
rity. (Pp. 43-87.) 

I. Man's primitive condition. 

(I.) Adam was made under law, as all his de- 
scendants are born under law. 
I. There is evidence of the existence of a 
moral as well as a natural government 
of the universe. 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 89 

2. The law under which all moral agents 
— angels, devils, or men — are placed, 
there is reason to believe, is, in its great 
principles, the same. 

3. Each particular law supposes the gene- 
ral .one. Law was x\oi first introduced 
into the world when the law of Moses 
was engraven on the tables of stone. 

(II.) The history of maris creation in brief. 
(P. 8.) 

1. The manner of the narration indicates 
something peculiar and eminent in the 
being formed. '' And God said, Let us 
make man in our image," &;c. 

2. The image of God — in what did it 
consist? 

(1.) Not in the body. 

(2.) Not in the dominion granted to man 
in this lower world 

(3.) Nor in any one essential quality : — 
as the evidence of Scripture is suffi- 
ciently explicit, that it comprises what 
"may be lost and regained. 

(4.) But, theologically speaking, we have 
(a.) The natural image of God — con- 
sisting of spirituality, immortality^ 
and intellectual powers. 
(b.) The moral image, proved from 



90 ANALYSIS OF 

the following passages of Scripture. 
(1.) Ecc. vii, " God made man up- 
right:' (2.) Col.iii, 10. (3.) Eph. 
iv, 24. (4.) " And God saw . . . 
and behold it was very good." 
(5.) As to the degree of Adam's perfec- 
tion in the image of God, there are two 
extreme opinions. Without falling 
into either of these, we have the fol- 
lowing conclusions : — 

1. Adam was sinless both in act and 
principle. 

2. He possessed the faculty of know- 
ledge, and also 

3. Holiness and righteousness, which 
express not only sinlessness, but 
positive and active virtues. 

3. Objection to the creation of man in the 
moral image of God, by Dr. Taylor, an- 
swered. 

(1.) The fallacy of the objection lies in 
confounding habits of holiness with 
the principle. 

(2.) Answer quoted from Wesley. 

(3.) From Edwards. 

4. Final cause of the creation of man — the 
display of the glory of God, and princi- 
pally of his moral perfections. 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 91 

II. The fall of man. (P. 19.) 

The Mosaic account, (the garden — serpent, 
&c.,) teaches of, (1) the existence of an 
evil spirit ; (2) the introduction of a state 
of moral corruptness into human nature ; 
and (3) a vicarious atonement for sin. 
There are three classes of opinions held 
among the interpreters of this account. 

(I.) Class. Those which deny the literal 
sense, and regard the whole narration as 
an instructive mythos. 

(A.) Two facts sufficiently refute these no- 
tions 

1. The account of the fall of the first pair 
is a part of a continuous history. If, then, 
the account of the fall may be excepted 
as allegorical, any subsequent portion 
of the Pentateuch may in like manner 
be taken away. 

2. The literal sense of the history is refer- 
red to, and reasoned upon, as such, in 
various parts of Scripture. (Pp. 22,23.) 

(B.) Objections have been started to the lite- 
ral and historical interpretation, of which 
the following are specimens : — 
1. "It is unreasonable to suppose that the 
fruit of the tree of life could confer im- 
mortality." But 



92 ANALYSIS OF 

(1.) Why could not this tree be the ap- 
pointed means of preserving health 
and life 1 

(2.) Why may not the eating of the 
fruit be regarded as a sacramental 
act? 

2. " How could the fruit of the tree of 
knowledge have any effect upon the in- 
tellectual powers ?" 

1 . Surely the tree might be called " the 
tree of knowledge of good and evil," 
because, by eating of its fruit, man 
came to know, by sad experience, the 
value of the good he had forfeited, 
&c. — or, 

2. It was the test of Adam's fidelity, and 
hence the name was proper. 

3. Objection has been made to the ac- 
count of the serpent^ (a.) That it makes 
" the invisible tempter assume the body 
of an animal." Who can prove this to 
be impossible ? (b.) " But the serpent 
spoke !" So did Balaam's ass. (c.) " But 
Eve was not surprised." Why should 
she ? or if she were, the history need not 
mentionso slight a matter, (d.) "But 
the serpent was unjustly sentenced, if 
merely an instrument." The serpent 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 93 

certainly held its rank at the pleasure 
of the Creator. 
(C.) Tradition comes in to support the literal 
sense of the history. 

1. The ancient Jewish writers, Apocry- 
pha, &c. 

2. The various systems of heathen my- 
thology — Greek, Egyptian, Indian, Ro- 
man, Gothic, and Hindoo. 

(II.) Class. Those who interpret the account, 
ill part literally, and in part allegorically . 
(P. 30.) Sufficiently answered by quota- 
tion from Bishop Horsley. 
(III.) Class. Those who believe that the 
history has, in perfect accordance with the 
literal interpretation, a mystical and higher 
sense than the letter. This sentiment, 
without running into the extravagances of 
mysticism, is the orthodox doctrine. The 
history is before us :■ — but rightly to un- 
derstand it, these four points should be 
kept in view, viz. : — 
1. Man was in a state of trial, 

(1.) This involved power of obedience 

and disobedience. 
(2.) That which determiTies to the one 

or the other, is the will. 
(3.) Our first parents were subject to 



94 ANALYSIS OF 

temptation from intellectual pride, from 
sense, and from passion. 
(4.) To resist such temptation, prayer, 
vigilance, &c., were requisite. 

2 . The prohibition of a certain fruit was hut 
one part of the law under which man was 
placed. 

(1.) Distinction between positive and 
7?ioral precepts. 

(2.) The moral reason for this positive 
precept, as indeed for, probably, all 
others, may be easily discovered. 

3. The serpent was but the instrument of the 
real tempter, who was that evil spirit, 
whose" Scriptural appellatives are the 
Devil and Satan. 

Existence and power of this spirit 
clearly declared in Scripture. 

4. The curse of the serpent was sym- 
bolical of the punishment of Satan. 
This symbolical interpretation de- 
fended by three considerations. (Pp. 
39-42.) 

III. Results of the fall. (Pp. 43-87.) 
(I.) To Adam, inevitable death, after a tem- 
porary life~of severe labour. (Pp. 43-51.) 
1 . Statement of opinions as to the extent 
and application of this penahy. 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 95 

(a.) Pelagian notion — Adam would have 
died had he not sinned. 

(b.) Pseudo-Arminian doctrine of Whit- 
by, and others. (Pp. 43-5.) 

(c.) Arminius's doctrine, taken from his 
writings. With this nearly agree the 
Remonstrants, Augsburg Confession, 
Church of England, French and 
Scottish churches. 
2. Import of the term death, as used in 

Scripture. (P. 48.) 

(a.) " Death came into the world by 
sin." 

(b.) It does not imply annihilation. 

(c.) It extends to the soul as well as to 
the body, thus embracing (1.) Bodily 
death, i. e., the separation of the soul 
from the body. (2.) Spiritual death, 
i. e., the separation of the soul from 
God. (3.) Eternal death, i. e., sepa- 
ration from God, and a positive in- 
fliction of his wrath in a future 
state. 

Taylor's objection answered by Wesley 
and Edwards. 
(II.) This sentence extended to Adam's po^- 
terity. (Pp. 52-61.) 
1. The testimony of Scripture explicitly 



96 ANALYSIS OF 

establishes k federal connection between 
Adam and his descendants. Rom. v ; 
1 Cor. XV, 22. / 

2. The imputation ofAdam^s sin to his pos- 
terity, is the result of this connection. 
Not mediate — not immediate — but the 
legal result of sin. 

3. The consequences of this imputation are, 
1.) Death of the body. 2.) Spiritual 
death. 3.) Eternal death. 

4. Objections are raised against this doc- 
trine — of two kinds, viz. : — one against 
high Calvinism, which we leave to take 
care of itself — and the other, against the 
legal part of this transaction, without 
considering, in connection with it, the 
evangelical scheme. The case may be 
considered 

(1.) With regard to adults. The reme- 
dial scheme offers, a.) In opposition 
to bodily death — the resurrection . b . ) I n 
opposition to spiritual death — spirit- 
ual life, c.) In opposition to eternal 
death — eternal life. 

(2.) With regard to infants, a.) The 
benefits of Christ's death are coex- 
tensive with the sin of Adam, Rom. 
V, 18 ; .hence all children dying in in- 



WATSON'S IXSTlTU'J'Ey. 97 

iBLUcy^pRYi'dke o( (he free gift, b.) In- 
fants are not indeed born justified : 
nor are they capable of that voluntary 
acceptance of the benefits of the free 
gift which is necessary in the case 
of adults : — but, on the other hand, 
they cannot reject it, — and it is by the 
rejection of it that adults perish, 
c.) The process by which grace is 
communicated to infants is not reveal- 
ed : the administration doubtless dif- 
fers from that employed toward adults, 
d.) Certain instrumental causes may 
be considered in the case of children, 
viz., the intercession of Christ ; or- 
dinances of the church ; prayers of 
parents, &lc. 
(III.) The moral condition in which men are 

actually born into the world, 

I. Several facts of experience are to be ac- 
counted for. 

1. That in all ages great and general 
national wickedness has prevailed. 

2. The strength of the tendency to this 
wickedness, marked by two circum- 
stances : 1.) The greatness of the 
crimes to which men have abandoned 
themselves. 2.) The number of re- 

7 



98 ANALYSIS OF 

slraints against which this tide of evil 
has urged its course. 

3. The seeds of the vices may be dis- 
covered in children in their earliest 
years. 

4. Every man is conscious of a natural 
tendency to many evils. 

5. The passions, appetites, and inclina- 
tions, make strong resistance, when 
man determines to renounce his evil 
courses. 

II. To account for these facts, we derive 
from Scripture the hypothesis, — that man 
is hy nature totally corrupt and degene- 
rate, and of himself incapable of any good 
thing. The following passages contain 
this doctrine, — 1.) Gen. v, 3, "Adam 
begat a son in his own likeness." 
2.) Gen. vi, 5, " Every imagination," 
&c. 3.) Gen. viii, 21, " The imagina- 
tion of man's heart is evil from his 
youth." 4.) Book of Job xi, 12 ; v, 7 ; 
xiv, 47 ; XV, 14. 5.) Psa. li, 5 ; Iviii, 3, 4. 
6.) Prov. xxii, 15 ; xxix, 15. 7.) Rom. 
iii, 10, quoted from Psa. xiv. 8.) That 
class of passages which speak of evil as 
a distinguishing mark not of any one 
man, but of himan nature^ Jeremiah, &c. 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 99 

9.) Our Lord's discourse with Nicode- 
mus, John iii. 10.) Argument in third 
chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. 
The doctrine of the natural and universal 
corruption of man's nature, thus obtained 
from Scripture, fully accounts for the 
above-mentioned five facts of expe- 
rience. Let us see how far they can 
be explained on 
in. The theory of man's natural innocence 
and purity. (P. 74.) This doctrine re- 
fers these phenomena to 
L General bad example. But 1.) This 
does not account for the introduction 
of wickedness. 2.) How could bad 
example become general, if men are 
generally disposed to good. 3.) This 
very hypothesis admits the power of 
evil example, which is almost giving 
up the matter in dispute. 4.) This 
theory does not account for the strong 
bias to evil in men ; nor for the vicious 
tempers of children, nor for the difi- 
culty of virtue. 
The advocates of this doctrine refer 

also to 
2. Vicious education, to account for these 
phenomena. But 1.) Where did Cain 



100 ANALYSIS OF 

get his vicious education ? 2.) Why 
should education be generally bad, 
unless men are predisposed to evil. 
3.) But, in fact, education in all coun- 
tries has in some degree opposed vice. 
4.) As for the other facts, education 
is placed upon the same ground as 
example. 

IV. Some take a milder view of the case 
than the orthodox, denying these ten- 
dencies to various excesses to be sinful, 
until they are approved by the will. (P. 77.) 
But why this universal compliance of the 
will with what is known to be evil, un- 
less there be naturally a corrupt state 
of the mind, which is what we contend 
for. The death of children proves that 
all men are " constituted" and treated as 
" sinners." 

V. Nature of oiiginal sin. 

1 . A privation of the image of God, ac- 
cording to Arminius. 

2. No infusion of evil into the nature of 
man by God, but positive evil, as the 
effect, is connected with privation of 
the life of God, as the, cause. 

3. As to the transmission of this corrupt 
nature, the Scriptural doctrine seems 



WATSON'S IxXSTlTUTES. 101 

to be that the soul is ex traduce, and 
not by immediate creation from God. 
This doctrine does not necessarily 
tend to materialism. 
4. It does not follow from the corruption 
of human nature that there can be 
nothinor virtuous amono men before 
regeneration. (P. 83.) But all that 
is good in -its principle is due to the 
Holy Spirit, whose influences are 
afforded to all, in consequence of the 
atonement offered for all. The fol- 
lowing reasons may be assigned for 
the apparent virtues that are noticed 
among unregenerate men. 1.) The 
understanding of man cannot reject 
demonstrated truth. 2.) The interests 
of men are often connected with right 
and wrong. 3.) The seeds of sin 
need exciting circumstances for their 
full development. 4.) All sins cannot 
show themselves in all men. 5.) Some 
men are more powerfully bent to one 
vice ; some to another. 
But all virtues grounded on principle, wherever 
seen among men, are to be ascribed to the 
Holy Spirit, which has been vouchsafed to 
" the world,^'' through the atonement. 



102 ANALYSIS OF 

(B.) Redemption. (Ch. xix-xxix.) 
(I.) Principles of redemption. (Ch.xix-xxii.) 

I. Principles of God's moral government. 
(Ch. xix.) 

The penalty of death was not immediately 
executed in all its extent upon the first sin- 
ning pair. Why ivas it not ? In order to 
answer this question, the character of God, 
and the principles of his moral govern- 
ment, will he briefly examined. 

(I.) The divine character is ilkistrated by 
the extent and severity of the punishments 
denounced against transgression. (P. 88.) 

(II.) It is more fully illustrated by the tes- 
timony of God himself in the Scriptures, 
(p. 89,) where 

1. The divine holiness, and 

2. The divine justice, are abundantly de- 
clared. Justice is either, 1) universal, 
or 2) particular, which latter is com- 
mutative (respecting equals) or distribu- 
tive, which is exercised only by govern- 
ors. Of the strictness and severity 
of the distributive justice of God, the 
sentence of death is suflficient evi- 
dence. 

(III.) Connection between the essential jus- 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 103 

tice of God, and such a constitution of law 
and government. (P. 91.) 

1. The creation of free human beings in- 
volved the possibility of evil volitions 
and acts, and consequently misery. 

2. To prevent these evils was the end of 
the divine government, the first act of 
which was the publication of the will or 
law of God : the second, to give motives 
to obedience, happiness, justice, fear. 

3. It was necessary to secure obedience, 
that the highest penalty should be affix- 
ed to transgression. 

4. Admitting its necessity, its institution 
was demanded by 1.) The holiness; 
2.) The justice ; and 3.) The goodness 
of God. 

(IV.) Does the justice of God oblige him to 
execute the penalty ? The opponents of 
the doctrine of atonement deny this : — but 
we can show, that 

1 . Sin cannot he forgiven hy the mere pre^ 

rogative of God : for 

(1.) God cannot give up his right to 

obedience, without indifference to moral 

rectitude. 

(2.) Nor can the Deity give up his right 

to punish disobedience, without either 



104 ANALYSIS OF 

(a) partiality, if pardon be granted to 
a/eif;, or (b) the abrogation, in effect, 
of law, if pardon be extended to all. 
2. Nor does repentance, on the part of 
the offender, place him in a new rela- 
tion, and thus render him a fit object of 
pardon. Those who hold this doctrine, 
admit the necessity of something which 
shall make it right as well as merciful 
for God to forgive. But we deny re- 
pentance to be that something : for 
(1.) We find no intimation in Scripture 
that the penalty of the law is not to 
be executed in case of repentance. 
(2.) It is not true that repentance 
changes the legal relation of the 
guilty to God, whom they have of- 
fended. They are offenders still, 
though penitent. 
(3.) So far from repentance producing 
this change of relation, we have 
proofs to the contrary, both from the 
Scriptures and the established course 
of providence. 
(4.) The true nature of repentance, as 
stated in the Scriptures, is overlooked^ 
by those who hold this doctrine. 
(5.) (P. \Q\,)lx\X\\e gospel, which profess- 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 105 

edly lays down the means by which 
men are to obtain the pardon of their 
sins, that pardon is not connected with 
mere repentance. 
II. Death of Christ propitiatory. (Chap, xx.) 
In this and the two following chapters, we 
investigate that method of love, wisdom, 
and justice, by which a merciful God jus- 
tifies the ungodly ; first, examining the 
statements of the New Testament ; second- 
ly, the sacrifices of the law; and thirdly^ 
the patriarchal sacrifices : — from which in- 
vestigation we hope to show clearly the 
unity of the three great dispensations of 
religion to man, the patriarchal, Levitical, 
and Christian, in the great principle, " that 
without the shedding of blood there is no 
remission." And first, 
A. Proof from the New Testament. (Ch. xx.) 

I. Man's salvation is ascribed in the New 
Testament to the death of Christ ; and 

1. The Socinian considers the death of 
Christ merely as the means hy which re- 
pentance is produced in the heart of man. 

2. The Arian connects with it that kind 
of merit which arises from a generous 
and benevolent self-devotion. But 

II. The New Testament represents the death 



106 ANALYSIS OF 

of Christ as necessary to salvation ; not as 
the meritorious means ^ but as the merito- 
rious cause. 

1. The necessity of Christ's death follows 
the admission of his divinity. 

2. The matter is put beyond question, by 
the direct testimony of Scripture ; " thus 
it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise 
from the dead," &c. 

III. The New Testament informs us that 
Christ died ''for us,^^ that is, in our room 
and stead. (P. 106.) 

1 . All those passages in which Christ is 
said to have died "/(?r" (vnep or avrt) 
men, prove that he died for us not con- 
sequentially but directly, as a substitute. 

2. Those passages in which he is said to 
have ''borne the punishment due to our 
offences,^^ prove the same thing. 
Grotius clearly proves that the Scrip- 
tures represent our sins as the impuU 
sive cause of the death of Christ. 

3. The passage in Isaiah liii, " the chas- 
tisement of our peace was upon him," 
&c., is applied to Christ by the apos- 
tles. 

4. The apostle Paul— 2 Cor. v, 21. 

5. Gal. iii, 13. 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 107 

IV. Some passages of the New Testament 
connect, with the death of Christ, the 
words propitiation, atonement, and recon- 
ciliation. (P. 112.) 
1. Propitiation. 

(1.) Definition — to propitiate is to atone, 
to turn away the wrath of an offended 
person. 
(2.) The Socinians, in their improved 
version, admit that it was " the paci- 
fying of an offended party :" but insist 
that Christ is a propitiation, because 
** by his gospel he brings sinners to 
repentance, and thus averts the divine 
displeasure." On this ground, Moses 
was a propitiation also. 
(3.) Socinians also deny the existence 
of wrath in God : — in order to show 
that propitiation, in a proper sense, 
cannot be taught in Scripture. But 
Scripture abundantly asserts that 
" God is angry with the wicked.^^ 
In holding this Scriptural doctrine, 
we do not assert the existence of 
wrath as a vengeful passion in the 
divine mind, — this is one of the 
many caricatures of orthodoxy by 
Socinianism. 



108 ANALYSIS OF 

2. Reconciliation, (p. 117,) occurs, Col. ij 
19, 22 ; Rom. v, 10, 1 1 ; 2 Cor. v, 18, 19. 
(1.) The expressions ''reconciliation,^^ 
''making peace, ^^ imply a previous state 
of mutual hostility between God and 
man. This relation is a legal one, as 
that of sovereign and criminal. The 
term enmity, used as it respects God, 
is unfortunate, but certainly something 
more is implied in reconciliation than 
man's laying aside his enmity to God. 
(P. 118.) 
(2.) Various passages of Scripture go 
directly to prove this. (P. 119.) Rom, 
V, 11 ; 2 Cor. v, 19 ; Eph. ii, 16. 
(3.) Socinian objection to the doctrine 
of reconciliation answered. (P. 121.) 
V. Some texts speak of redemption in con- 
nection with the death of Christ, e. g., Rom. 
iii, 24; Gal. iii, 13; Eph. i, 7 ; 1 Pet. i, 
18, 19; 1 Cor. vi, 19, 20. (P. 122.) 
(1.) The Socinian notion of a gratuitous 
deliverance is refuted by the very terms 
used in the above-cited passages : such 
as XvTQOG), to redeem, &c. 
(2.) The means by which it has been at- 
tempted to evade the force of these state- 
ments must be refuted. They are 



I 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 109 

1 . " That the term redemption is some- 
times used for simple deliverance, 
when no price is supposed to be 
given." Answer, 

a. The occasional use of the term in 
an improper manner, cannot be 
urged against its strict signification. 

b. Our redemption by Christ is em- 
phatically spoken of in connection 
with the Xvrpov, or redemption 
price : but this word is never added 
to the deliverance effected for the 
Israelites by Moses. 

2. " That our interpretation of these 
passages would involve the absurdity 
of paying a price to Satan." Ans. 

a. The idea of redemption is not to 
be confined to the purchasing of a 
captive. 

b. Nor does it follow, even in that 
case, that the price must be paid to 
him who detains the captive. Our 
captivity to Satan is judicial, and 
satisfaction is to be made, not to 
the jailer, but to him whose law has 
been violated. 

3. " That our doctrine is inconsistent 
with the freeness of the grace of 



110 ANALYSIS OF 

God in the forgiveness of sins." 
(P. 127.) Ans. 

a. Dr. Priestley himself, in requiring 
penitence from the sinner, admits 
that grace may be free, while not 
unconditional. 

b. The passage of St. Paul which 
Dr. P. quotes, runs thus, " Being 
justified freely by his grace, through 
the redemption which is in Christ 
Jesus." 

c When sin is spoken of as a debt, 

freely remitted, it is clear that a 

metaphor is employed. (P. 129.) 

VI. The nature of the death of Christ is still 

further explained in the New Testament, 

by the manner in which it connects our 

justification with faith in the blood of 

Christ: and both our justification and the 

death of Christ with the ''righteousness 

of God," Rom. iii, 24-26. 

(a.) Thus the forgiveness of sin is not only 

an act of mercy ^ but an act o^ justice. 
(b.) The steps of this " demonstration" of 
the righteousness of God are easily to 
be traced. For, 

1. The law is by this means established 
in its authority and perpetuity. 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. Ill 

2. On any other theory, there is no 
manifestation of God's hatred of sin, 
commensurate with the intense holi- 
ness of the divine nature. 

3. The person who suffered the penalty' 
of the law for us was the Son of God : 
— in him divinity and humanity were 
united : — and thus, as " God spared 
not his own Son," his justice is de- 
clared to be inflexible and inviolable. 

The Socinians object that " the dignity 
of a person adds nothing to the esti- 
mation of his sufferings." But (1,) the 
common opinion of mankind in all 
ages is directly against this : and 
(2,) the testimony of Scripture is ex- 
plicit on this point. 

4. Though all men are brought, by the 
death of Christ, into a salvable state, 
yet none of them are brought from 
under the authority of the moral law. 

Vn. " The satisfaction made to divine jus- 
tice," is a phrase which, though not found 
in Scripture, is yet of theological value, 
and deserves to be considered. (P. 137.) 
(1.) There are two views of satisfaction 

among those who hold the doctrine of 

atonement, viz. 



112 ANALYSIS OF 

1. That the sufferings and death of 
Christ are, for the dignity of his na- 
ture, regarded as a full equivalent and 
adequate compensation for the pun- 
ishment of the personally guilty by 
death. 

2. That Christ made satisfaction for our 
sins, not because his death is to be 
considered a full equivalent for the 
remission of punishment, but because 
his suffering in our stead maintained 
the honour of the divine law, and yet 
gave free scope to the mercy of the 
lawgiver. 

Both these are defective, but the first may 
be admitted, with some explanations. 

(II.) Some explanatory observations then 
are necessary. (P. 138.) 

1 . The term satisfaction is taken from 
the Roman law, and signifies the con- 
tentment of an injured party by any 
thing which he may choose to accept 
in place of the enforcement of his ob- 
ligation upon the party offending. As 
?i just governor, then, God is satisfied, 
contented with the atonement offered 
by the vicarious death of his Son. 

2. The effect produced upon the mind 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 113 

of the lawgiver is not the satisfaction, 
as the Socinians would say, of a 
vengeful affection. 
3. Nor is the death of Christ to be re- 
garded merely as a wise and fit ex- 
pedient of government : for this may 
imply that it was one of many pos- 
sible expedients, though the best. 
(P. 139.) 
(III.) The Antinomian perversion of these 
phrases needs to be refuted. 

1. Antinomians connect the satisfaction 
of Christ with the doctrine of the im- 
putation of his active righteousness to 
believers: but, 1.) We have no such 
office ascribed in Scripture to the ac- 
tive righteousness of Christ. 2.) This 
doctrine of imputation makes Christ's 
sufferings superfluous. 3.) It leaves 
man without law, and God without 
dominion. 4.) This is not satisfac- 
tion in any good sense : it is merely 
the performance of all that the law 
requires by one person substituted 
for another. 

2. The terms y?//^ satisfaction and equi- 
valent, are taken by the Antinomians 
in the sense of payment of debts by a 

8 



114 ANALYSIS OF 

sinety : but we answer, He who pays 
a debt for another, does not render an 
equivalent, but gives precisely what 
the original obligation requires. 
3. The Antinomian view makes the jus- 
tification of men a matter of rights not 
of grace. On their view, we cannot 
answer the Socinian objection that 
satisfaction destroys the free nature 
of an act of forgiveness. 

VIII. It is sometimes said that we do not 
know the vinculum between the sufferings 
of Christ and the pardon of sin. (P. 143.) 
But Scripture seems to give definite infor- 
mation on this point, in declaring the death 
of Christ to be a " demonstration of the 
righteousness of God." 

IX. Objection is made to the justice of the 
substitution of the innocent for the guil- 
ty. But, 

1. It has always been considered a virtue 
to suffer for others under certain circum- 
stances : and the justice of such acts 
has never been questioned. Still, 

2. It is wrong to illustrate this doctrine 
by analogies between the sufferings of 
Christ and the sufferings of persons on 
account of the sins of others And, 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 115 

3. The principle of vicarious punishment 
could not justly be adopted by human 
governments in any case whatever. But, 

4. In regard to the offering of Christ, — the 
circumstances, (1) of the willingness oi 
the substitute to submit to the penalty, 
and (2) his right thus to dispose of 
himself, fully clear up the question of 
justice. 

The difficulty of reconciling the sufferings 
of Christ with the divine justice lies 
rather with the Socinians than with us. 
Ezek. xviii, 20, is satisfactorily explain- 
ed by Grotius. 
. Proof from the sacrifices of the law. (Ch.xxi.) 
Having adduced, from the New Testament, 
cogent proofs of the vicarious efficacy of 
Christ's death, we proceed, by the light of 
the argument already made good, to ex- 
amine the use made of the sacrificial terms 
of the Old Testament : and first, the sacri- 
fices of the law. 
The terms taken from the Jewish sacrifices, 
(such as " Lamb of God," " Passover," 
&c.,) when used by the writers of the New 
Testament would be not only absurd^ but 
criminally misleading both to Jews and 
Gentiles : unless intended to teach the 



116 ANALYSIS OF 

sacrificial character of the death of Christ. 
(Pp. 149-50.) 
It is necessary to establish the expiatory na- 
ture of the Jewish, sacrifices, and their typical 
character, both of which have been ques- 
tioned. To prove that 

I. The Levitical sacrifices were expiatory, it is 
only necessary to show that the eminent 
sacrifices were such. (P. 151.) 

The notion that these sacrifices were mere 
mulcts or fines is disproved 

1. By the general appointment (Levit. xvii, 
10, 11) of the blood to be an atonement 
for the souls. (P. 153.) 

2. ^Y particular instances ; e. g., Levit. v, 
15, 16. (P. 154.) 

3. By the fact, that atonement was re- 
quired by the law to be made, by sin- 
offerings, and burnt-offerings, for even bo- 
dily distempers and disorders. (P. 155.) 

4. By the sacrifices offered statedly for the 
whole congregation. 

5. By the sacrifice of the passover. 
(P. 158.) 

II. The Levitical sacrifices were also types. 
(P. 159.) 

A type is a sign or example, prepared and 
designed by God to prefigure some future 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 117 

thing. St. Paul shows that the Levitical 
sacrifices were such. 

1 . In his general description of the typical 
character of the " church in the wilder- 
ness." 

2. In his notice of the Levitical sacrifices 
in particular. 

3. The ninth chapter of Hebrews gives 
direct declarations of the appointment 
and designation of the tabernacle ser- 
vice to be a shadow of good things to 
come. 

III. Sacrificial allusions are employed in the 
New Testament to describe the nature and 
effect of the death of Christ, not figura- 
tively, but properly. 

(a.) Illustrated in various passages : 1. For 
he hath " made him to be sin for us, 
who knew no sin." 2. Ephes. v, 2, 
" Christ loved us, and gave himself for 
us," (fee. 3. The whole argument of 
St. Paul' in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
4. " And almost all things are by the 
law purged with blood," &c. 
(b.) Illustrated by distinction between ^^w- 

rative and analogical language. 
Quotation from Veysies' Bampton Lec- 
tures. 



118 ANALYSIS OF 

IV. As to the objection, that the Jewish sa- 
crifices had no reference to the expiation 
of moral transgression, we observe, 

1. That a distinction is to be made be- 
tween sacrifices as a part of the theo-po- 
litical law of the Jews, and sacrifice as 
a rite practised by their fathers. 

2. 'Atonement was ordered to be made for 
sins committed against any divine com- 
mandment. 

3. But if all the sin-offerings of the Leviti- 
cal institute had respected legal atone- 
ment and ceremonial purification, that 
circumstance would not invalidate the 
true sacrifice of Christ. 

C. From the 'patriarchal sacrifices. (Ch. xxii.) 
Having shown that the sacrifices of the law 
were expiatory, we proceed now to show 
the same of the Ante-Mosaical sacrifices. 
The proofs are, 

I. The distribution of beasts into clean and 
unclean. 

II. The prohibition of blood for food. 

III. The sacrifices of the patriarchs were 
those of animal victims, and their use was 
to avert the displeasure of God from sin- 
ning men : e.g., those of Job, Noah, and 
Abel. But as this last has given rise to 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 119 

controversy, we shall consider more at 
large 
IV. AbeVs sacrifice. (P. 173.) 

1. As to the matter of it, — it was an ani- 
mal offering : not wool or milk, as Gro- 
tius and Le Clerc would have it, but the 
*' firstlings of his flock." 

2. This animal offering was indicative of 
AbeFs faith, as declared by the apostle, 
Hebrews, chap. xi. 

3. But Davison, in his " Inquiry," asserts 
that the divine testimony was not to the 
^^ specific form of Abel's oblation, but to 
his actual righteousness.'^^ 

The objections to this view of the matter 

are many. 

(1.) It leaves out, entirely, all conside- 
ration of the difference betwen the 
sacrifice of Abel and that of Cain. 

(2.) It passes over Abel's " faith," as 
evinced in this transaction. 

(3.) The apostle is not speaking of the 
general tendency of faith to induce a 
holy life, but of faith as producing 
certain acts : and his reference is to 
Abel's faith, as expressing itself by his 
offering a more excellent sacrifice. 

(4.) St. John's incidental dXhx^ioxiXo khaV^ 



120 ANALYSIS OF 

personal righteousness does not in the 
least affect the statement of Paul, who 
treated professedly, not incidentally, 
the subject. And Gen. iv, 7, may be 
considered in two views : either, a) to 
"Jo loeW^ may mean, to do as Abel 
had done ; or, b) the words may be 
considered as a declaration of the 
principles of God's righteous govern- 
ment over men. 
4. If then Abel's faith had an immediate 
connection with his sacrifice, the ques- 
tion occurs, to what had that faith re- 
spect? (P. 178.) Let us illustrate the 
object of the faith of the elders, from 
Heb. xi, and then ascertain the object 
of Abel's faith also, from the acts in 
which it imbodied itself. In this chap- 
ter, then, 

(1.) Faith is taken in the sense of affi- 
ance in God : and supposes some pro- 
mise or revelation on his part, as the 
warrant for every act of affiance ; as 
in the cases of Enoch, Noah, Abra- 
ham, &c. 
(2.) This revelation was antecedent to 
the faith : but the acts and the revela- 
tion had a natural and striking con- 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 121 

formity to each other: e. g., Noah, 
&c. Our inference then, as to Abel's 
sacrifice, is, that it was not eucharistic 
merely, but an act of faith, having re- 
spect to a previous and appropriate 
revelation. The conclusion imbodied 
in the words of Archbishop Magee is 
warranted by the argument. 
(3.) But it may be asked what evidence 
have we from Scripture that such an 
antecedent revelation was made ? (P. 
182.) We have 

(a.) The necessary inferences from 
the circumstances of the transac- 
tion, which, combined with the apos- 
tle's interpretation of them, enable 
us sufficiently to defend this ground. 
The text which may be wanting in 
the Old Testament, is often supplied 
by the inspired comment in the 
New: — e. g., the manna — the rock, 
&c. . . If it be argued that such 
types were not understood, as such, 
by the persons among whom they 
were first instituted, the answer is : 
1. Either they were in some de- 
gree revealed to such as prayed for 
light, or we must conclude that the 



122 ANALYSIS OF 

whole system of types was without 
edification to the Jews, and instruc- 
tive only to us. 2. We have in 
Heb. xi, in the case of Abraham, a 
direct proof of a distinct revelation, 
which is nowhere recorded as such 
in the Mosaic history, 
(b.) Besides these inferences, how- 
ever satisfactory, we have an ac- 
count, though brief, of such revela- 
tion. (1.) The brevity of the ac- 
count in the Mosaic history, is 
doubtless not without good reason ; 
and (2,) brief as it is, we can easily 
collect, from the early part of Gene- 
sis, no unimportant information in 
regard to primitive theology. (3.) It 
is in regard to the first promise that 
we join issue with Mr. Davison ; 
(p. 188;) believing that his view 
of it [Inquiry, &c.) contains, with 
some truth, much error. For, a.) It 
is assumed, contrary to evidence, 
that the book of Genesis is a com- 
plete history of the religious opin- 
ions of the patriarchs ; and he 
would have the promise interpreted 
by them so as to convey only a 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 123 

general indistinct impression of a 
deliverer, and that the doctrines of 
the divinity, incarnation, &c., of 
that deliverer, were not in any way 
to be apprehended in this promise. 
Let us see, then, whether the pro- 
mise, " interpreted by itself," must 
not have led the patriarchs many 
steps at least toward these doc- 
trines, b.) The divine nature of the 
promised Redeemer, we are told, 
was a separate revelation. (P. 190.) 
But surely, the work assigned 
to him — the blessings he was to 
procure — the power that he was to 
exercise, according to the promise, 
were all indications of a nature 
superior to humanity, and to the 
angels, c.) The doctrine of the in- 
carnation was contained also in the 
promise : this restorer was to be of 
"the seed of the woman. ''^ (P. 191.) 
d.) So of the doctrine of vicarious 
sufferings : " the heel of the seed 
of the woman was to be bruised ^^^ 
&c. (P. 192.) 
(4.) It is urged by Mr. Davison, that the 
faith spoken of in Hebrews xi, had 



I 



124 ANALYSIS OF 

for its simple object, that " God is 

the rewarder of such as diligently 

seek him." But, 

a.) Though this is supposed as the 
groundwork of every act of faith, 
yet the special acts recorded have 
each their special object : and, 

b.) This notion could not be at all 
apposite to the purpose for which 
this recital of the faith of the elders 
was addressed to the Hebrews. 
Two views may be given of this 
recital: — 1. That the apostle ad- 
duced this list of worthies as exam- 
ples of a steady faith in all that 
God had then revealed to man, and 
its happy consequences : 2. That 
he brought them up to prove that 
all the " elders" had faith in the 
Christ to come. Nor is this stronger 
view difficult to be made out, as we 
may trace in the cases of Abel, 
Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Ja- 
cob, &c., a respect more or less 
immediate, to the leading object of 
all faith, the Messiah himself. 
Enough has been said to prove that the sa- 
crifice of Abel was expiatory, and that it 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 125 

conformed, as an act of faith, to some an- 
terior revelation. 
V. A divine origin must he ascribed to sa- 
crifice. 

1 . The evidence of Scripture is of sufficient 
clearness to establish the divine origin 
of the antediluvian sacrifices : but, 

2. The argument drawn from the natural 
incongruity of sacrificial rites ought not 
to be overlooked : which is strong, even 
as to the fruits of the earth, (the offering 
of which cannot be shown to origi- 
nate either in reason or in sentiment,) 
(pp. 202-4,) and still stronger, as to ani- 
mal oblations. (P. 205.) 

The divine institution of expiatory sacri- 
fice being thus carried up to the first ages, we 
perceive the unity of the three great dispensa- 
tions of religion, the Patriarchal, the Leviti- 
CAL, and the Christian, in the great principle, 
*' that without the shedding of hlood there is no 
remission.''^ 

(II.) Benefits of the atonement. 
(Ch. xxiii-xxix.) 
A. Justification. (Ch. xxiii.) 

Preliminary. All natural and spiritual good 
must be included among the benefits de- 



126 ANALYSIS OF 

rived to man from the atonement : but we 
shall now treat particularly of those which 
constitute what is called in Scripture, 
man's salvation. 
The fruits of the death and intercession of 
Christ are — 

1. To render it consistent with a righteous 
government to forgive sin ; 

2. To call forth the active exercise of the love 
of God to man, which displays itself 

(1.) In the variety of the divine dispensa- 
tions : 

(2.) In the revelation of the divine will, 
and declaration of God's purposes of 
grace : 

(3.) In the institution of the Christian 
ministry : 

(4.) In the influences of the Holy Spirit. 

The act of mercy by which man is recon- 
ciled to God is called in the Scriptures, 

JUSTIFICATION. 

I. Statement of the Scriptural doctrine. 
1. Justification, the remission of sin, the 
non-imputation of sin, and the imputa- 
tion of righteousness, are phrases of the 
same import : — of which the following 
passages are proof : Luke xviii, 13, 14 ; 
Acts xiii, 38, 39 ; Rom. iii, 25, 26 ; iv, 4, 8. 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 127 

2. The importance of maintaining this 

simple view of justification, — viz., that it 

is the remission of sins, — will appear from 

the following considerations. 

(1.) We are taught that pardon of sin is 
not an act of prerogative, done above 
law : but a judicial process, done con- 
sistently with law. 

(2.) That justification has respect to par- 
ticular individuals. 

(3.) Justification being a sentence of 
pardon, the Antinomian notion of eter- 
nal justification becomes a manifest 
absurdity. 

(4.) We are guarded, by this view of 
justification, against the notion that it 
is an act of God hy which we are made 
actually just and righteous. 

(5.) No ground is afforded for the notion 
that justification imports the imputa- 
tion to us of the active and passive right- 
eousness of Christ, so as to make us 
both positively and relatively right- 
eous. 
II. Doctrine of imputation. (Pp. 215-243.) 
There are three opinions : 
(I.) The high Calvinistic, or Antinomian 

scheme, which is, that " Christ's active 



128 ANALYSIS OF 

righteousness is imputed unto us, as 
ours." In answer to this we say, 

1. It is nowhere stated in Scripture. 

2. The notion here attached to Christ's 
representing us, is wholly gratuitous. 

3. There is no weight in the argument, 
that " as our sins were accounted his, 
so his righteousness is accounted 
ours :" for our sins were never so ac- 
counted Christ's, as that he did them. 

4. The doctrine involves a fiction and 
impossibility inconsistent with the 
divine attributes. 

5. The acts of Christ were of a loftier 
character than can be supposed capa- 
ble of being the acts of mere crea- 
tures. 

6. Finally, and fatally, this doctrine 
shifts the meritorious cause of man's 
justification from Christ's " obedience 
unto death," to Christ's active obe- 
dience to the precepts of the law. 
Quotations are made in confirmation 
from Piscator and Goodwin. (Pp. 
218-220.) 

(II.) The opinion of Calvin himself and 
many of his followers, adopted also by 
some Arminians. It differs from the 



WATSON^S INSTITUTES. 129 

first in not separating the active from 
the passive righteousness of Christ : for 
such a distinction would have been in- 
consistent v^ith Calvin's notion that jus- 
tification is simply the remission of 
sins. (Pp. 221-3.) 

1. This view is adopted with certaia 
modifications by Arminians and Wes- 
ley. (Pp. 223-4.) 

2. But there is a manifest difference, 
(pp. 225-233,) which arises from the 
different senses in which the word 
imputation is used; the Arminian em- 
ploying it in the sense of accounting 
to the believer the benefit of Christ's 
righteousness ; — the Calvinist, in the 
sense of reckoning the righteousness 
of Christ as ours. A slight examina- 
tion of the following passages will 
show that this notion has no founda- 
tion in Scripture : — Psalm xxxii, 1 ; 
Jer. jcxiii, 6 ; Isa. xlv, 24 ; Rom. iii, 
21, 22 ; 1 Cor. i, 30 ; 2 Cor. v, 21 ; 
Rom. v, 18, 19. In connection with 
this last text, it is sometimes attempt- 
ed to be shown that as Adam's sin is 
imputed to his posterity, so Christ's 
obedience is imputed unto those that 

9 



n 



130 ANALYSIS OF 

are saved : but ( Goodwin on Justijica' 
tion) 1.) The Scripture nowhere af- 
firms, either the imputation of Adam's 
sin to his posterity or of the right- 
eousness of Christ to those that be- 
lieve. 2.) To impute sin, in Scrip- 
ture phrase, is to charge the guilt of 
sin upon a man with a purpose to 
punish him for it : and 3.) As to the 
imputation of Adam^s sin to his poste- 
rity ; if by it is meant, simply that the 
guilt of Adam's sin is charged upon 
his whole posterity, let it pass : but 
if the meaning be, that all Adam's 
posterity are made, by this imputation, 
formally sinners, then the Scriptures 
do not justify it. 
(III.) The imputation of faith for righteous- 
ness. (P. 234.) 
(a.) Proof of this doctrine. 

1. It is expressly taught in Scrip- 
ture, Romans iv, 3-24, etc.,— nor 
is faith used in these passages by 
metonymy for the object of faith, 
that is, the righteousness of 
Christ. 

2. The testimony of the church to this 
doctrine has been uniform from the 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 131 

earliest ages : — Tertiillian, Origen, 
Justin Martyr, etc., down to the 
sixteenth century. (Pp. 236-9.) 
(b.) Explanation of the terms of the pro- 
position, that " faith is imputed for 
righteousness." (Pp. 239-242.) 
(I.) Righteousness. To be accounted 
righteous, is, in the style of the 
apostle Paul, to be justified, where 
there has been personal guilt. 
(2.) Faith. It is not faith generally 
considered, that is imputed to us 
for righteousness, but faith (trust) 
in an atonement offered by another 
in our behalf. 
(3.) Imputation. The non-imputation 
of sin, to a sinner, is expressly call- 
ed " the imputation of righteous- 
ness, without works ;" the imputa- 
tion of righteousness is then the non- 
punishment or pardon of sin ; and 
by imputing faith for righteousness, 
the apostl'fe means precisely the 
same thing. 
(c.) The objections to the doctrine of the 
imputation of faith for righteousness 
admit of easy answer. 
( 1 .) The Papists err in taking the term 



132 ANALYSIS OF 

justification to signify the making 
men morally just. 

(2.) A second objection is, that if be- 
lieving is imputed for righteousness, 
then justification is by works, or 
by somewhat in ourselves. In this 
objection, the term works is used in 
an equivocal sense. 

(3.) A third objection is, that this doc- 
trine gives occasion to boasting : 
but 1.) This objection lies with 
equal strength against the doctrine 
of imputed righteousness : 2.) The 
faith itself is the gift of God: 
3.) The blessings which follow 
faith are given in respect to the death 
of Christ : 4.) Paul says that boast- 
ing is excluded by the law of faith. 
III. The nature of justifying faith ; and its 
connection with justification. (Pp. 243-53.) 

1. Faith is, 1) assent: 2) confidence: — 
and this faith is the condition to which 
the promise of God annexes justifica- 
tion. 

2. Justification by faith alone is clearly 
the doctrine of Scripture. Some sup- 
pose this doctrine to be a peculiarity of 
Calvinism, but it has been maintained 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 133 

by various Arminian writers, and by 
none with more earnestness and vigour, 
than by Mr, Wesley. (Pp. 246-8.) 

3. The general objection to this doctrine 
is, that it is unfavourable to morality. 
The proper answer to this old objection 
is, that although we are justified by 
faith alone, the faith by which we are 
justified is not alone in the heart which 
exercises it : " faith is sola, yet not soli- 
taria.''^ Some colour is given to this 
objection by the Calvinistic view of final 
perseverance, which we disavow. 

4. Various errors have arisen from unne- 
cessary attempts to guard this doc- 
trine. (P. 250.) 

(1 .) The Romish Church confounds jus- 
tification and sanctification. 
(2.) Another opinion is, that justifying 
faith includes works of evangelical 
obedience. 

(a.) The Scriptures put a plain dis- 
tinction between faith and works, 
(b.) It is not probable that Christ and 
his apostles meant more by this 
word than its fixed and usual import. 
(3.) A third notion, that faith apprehends 
the merits of Christ, to make up for 



134 ANALYSIS oy 

the deficiency of our imperfect obe- 
dience, is sufficiently refuted by the 
fact that no intimation of it is given 
in Scripture. 
(4.) The last error referred to is that 
which represents faith as, per se, the 
necessary root of obedience. Per- 
haps those who use this language do 
not generally intend to say all that it 
conveys. 
IV. A few theories on the subject of justifi- 
cation remain to be stated and examined. 
(Pp. 253-266.) 

(1.) The doctrine held by Bishop Taylor, 
Archbishop Tillotson, and others, that 
" regeneration is necessary to justifica- 
tion," is an error whose source appears 
to be two-fold : (a) from a loose notion 
of the Scriptural doctrine of regenera- 
ration : and (b) from confounding the 
change which repentance implies, with 
regeneration itself. 
(2.) Another theory is that propounded by 
Bishop Bull, in his Harmonia ApostoUca, 
which has taken deep root in the Eng- 
lish Church : the doctrine being, that 
justification is by works ; — those works 
being such as proceed from faith, are 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 135 

done by the assistance of the Spirit, and 
are not meritorious. Instead of recon- 
ciling St. James to St. Paul, Bishop 
Bull takes the unusual course of recon- 
ciling St. Paul to St. James : but 
(a.) St. Paul treats the doctrine of justi- 
fication professedly; St. James inci- 
dentally, 
(b.) The two apostles are not address- 
ing themselves to persons in the same 
circumstances, and hence do not en- 
gage in the same argument, 
(c.) St. Paul and St. James do not use 
the term justification in the same 
sense. Lastly, the two apostles agree 
with each other upon the subject of 
faith and works. 
(3.) A third theory is maintained by some 
of the leading divines of the English 
Church ; which is, that men are justified 
by faith only, but that faith is mere as- 
sent to the truth of the gospel. The 
error of this scheme consists in the par- 
tial view which is taken of the nature 
of justifying faith. 
(4.) A fourth theory defers justification to 
the last day. In answer to this, we say, 
a.) It is not essential to pardon that all 



136 AXALYfcilS OF 

its consequences should be immedi- 
ately removed, 
b.) Acts of private and personal judg- 
ment are in no sense contrary to a 
general judgment. 
c.) Justification now, and at the last day, 
are not the same : — a.) They are not 
the same act : — b.) They do not pro- 
ceed upon the same principle. 
(5.) The last theory is that of collective 
justification, proposed by Dr. Taylor, 
of Norwich ; which only needs to be 
stated, not refuted. 
B. Concomitants of justification. (Ch.xxiv.) 
I. Regeneration is a change wrought in man 
by the Holy Spirit, by which the dominion 
of sin over him is broken, so that with free 
choice of will he serves God. 

1. Repentance is not regeneration, but 
precedes it. 

2. Regeneration is not justification, but 
always accompanies it : which may be 
proved 

(1.) From the nature of justification 

itself. 
(2.) From Scripture : " If any man be 
in Christ, he is a new creature," 
IL Adoption is that act by which we who 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 137 

were enemies are made the sons of God 
and heirs of his eternal glory : and is that 
state to which belong freedom from a ser- 
vile spirit, &c. . . . with the Spirit of 
adoption, or the witness of the Spirit, by 
which means only we can know that the 
privileges of adoption are ours. The doc- 
trine of the witness of the Spirit is clearly 
taught in the Epistles : it is sometimes 
called assurance, but as this phrase has 
been abused, it should perhaps be cau- 
tiously employed. 
(1.) There are four opinions on the subject 
of this testimony of the Spirit. 

1 . That it is twofold : 1 .) A direct testimony 
of the Spirit ; 2.) An indirect testimony 
arising from the work of the Spirit in 
the heart. 

2. That it is tw^ofold, also: 1.) The fruits 
of the Spirit in the heart of the believer : 
2.) The consciousness, on the part of the 
believer, of possessing faith. 

3. That there is but one witness, the Holy 
Spirit, acting concurrently with our own 
spirits. 

4. That there is a direct witness, which 
is the special privilege of a few favour- 
ed persons. 



138 ANALYSIS OF 

(2.) Observations on these four opinions. 
(Pp. 273-80.) 

1. All sober divines allow that Christians 
may attain comfortable persuasions of 
the divine favour. 

2. By those w^ho admit justification, it must 
be admitted that either this act of mercy 
must be kept secret from man, or, there 
must be some means of his knowing it : 
and if the former, there can be no com* 
fortable persuasion, &c., but, on the con- 
trary. Scripture declares that the justified 
" rejoice." 

3. If the Christian, then, may know that 
he is forgiven, how is this knowledge to 
be attained ? The twofold testimony of 
the Spirit, and heart declares it. Romans 
viii, 16. 

4. But does the Holy Spirit give his testi- 
mony directly to the mind, or mediately 
by our own spirits, as Bishop Bull and 
Mr. Scott affirm? To the latter doc- 
trine we object, that the witness is still 
that of our own spirit ; and that but one 
witness is allowed, while St. Paul speaks 
of two. 

5. Neither the consciousness of genuine 
repentance, nor that oi faith, is conscious- 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 139 

ness of adoption ; and if nothing more 
be afforded, the evidence of forgiveness 
is only that of mere inference. 
6. " But are not the fruits of the Spirit, 
love, joy, peace, &;c., sufficient proof of 
our adoption, without a more direct tes- 
timony ?" Nay — these very fruits, (at 
least love, joy, and peace, which cannot 
be separated from the others,) presup- 
pose, not only a pardon, but a clear per- 
suasion of that pardon. 

The witness of the Spirit is direct, then, and 
not mediate ; nor is this a new doctrine, as may 
be easily shown by quotations from Luther^ 
Hooper, Andrew, Usher, Hooker, &c. The se- 
cond testimony is that of our own spirits, not to 
the fact of our adoption directly, but to the fact 
that we have, in truth, received the Spirit of 
adoption, and that we are under no delusive 
impressions. 

Digression, on the extent of the atone- 
ment. (Ch. xxv-xxviii.) 
The Calvinistic controversy forms a clear 
case of appeal to the Scriptures, by whose 
light we purpose to examine it. In regard 
to the extent of the atonement, 
I. Our proposition is, that Jesus Christ did so 



140 ANALYSIS OF 

die for all men^ as to make salvation attain- 
able by all men, (pp. 285-8,) and we prove 
it by 

1. Passages which expressly declare the 
doctrine. 

(a.) Those which say that Christ died '^for 
all men," and speak of his death as an 
atonement for the sins of the whole 
world. 

(b.) Those which attribute an equal extent 
to the death of Christ, as to the effects 
of the fall. 

2. Passages which necessarily imply the 
doctrine, viz. 

(a.) Those which declare that Christ died, 
not only for those that are saved, but for 
those who do or may perish, 
(b.) Those which make it the duty of men 
to believe the gospel ; and place them 
under guilt, and the penalty of death, for 
rejecting it. 
(c.) Those in which men^s failure to ob- 
tain salvation is placed to. the account 
of their own opposing wills, and made 
wholly their own fault. 
II. We have to consider w;A«^ our opponents 
have to urge against these plain statements 
of Scripture. In the first place, they have 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 141 

no text whatever to adduce which declares 
that Christ did not die for the salvation of 
all, as literally as those which declare that 
he did so die. They merely attempt to ex- 
plain away the force of the passages we have 
adduced : thus — 

1. To our first class of texts, they object, 
that the terms, '' all men^^ and " the world^^ 
are sometimes used in Scripture in a limit- 
ed sense. This may be granted ; but the 
true question yet remains, whether in the 
above-cited passages they can be under- 
stood, except in the largest sense. We 
deny this, 

(1.) Because the universal sense of the 
terms used, is confirmed either by the 
context of the passages in which they 
occur, or by other scriptures. 
(2.) Nor can the phrases " tJie world,'^ &c., 
be paraphrased as " the world of the 
elect :" for 

a.) The elect are in Scripture distin- 
guished from the world. 
b.) The common division of mankind in 
the New Testament, is into only two 
parts, viz., the disciples of Christ, and 
" the world." 
c.) When the redemption is spoken of, it 



142 ANALYSIS OF 

often includes both those who had 
been chosen out of the world, and 
those who remained still of the world, 

d.) In the general commission, " Go ye 
into all the world," the expression 
" into" has its fullest latitude of 
meaning. 

e.) This restrictive interpretation gives 

gross absurdity to several passages 

of Scripture. John iii, 16, 17, 18. 

(Pp. 291-2.) 

2. To our second class of texts — those which 

imply the unrestricted extent of Christ's 

death — certain qualifying answers are 

given, (pp. 293-306,) thus— 

(1.) As to those which speak of Christ 

having died for them that perish. 

a.) '' Destroy not him," &c., Romans 
xiv, 15. Poole's paraphrase on this 
text, " for whom, in the judgment of 
charity, we may suppose Christ died," 
completely counteracts the argument 
of the apostle. Scott, also, by ex- 
plaining this as a "caution against 
doing any thing which has a tendency 
to destroy," takes away, completely, 
the motive on which the admonition 
is grounded. 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 143 

b.) " Denying the Lord that bought 
them," &c., 2 Pet. ii, 1. The inter- 
pretations of Scott and Poole are eva- 
sions of the force of the text, which 
is, that their offence was aggravated, 
by the fact of Christ's having bought 
them. 

c.) The case of the apostates, Heb. vi, 
4-8, and x, 26-31. Calvinists deny 
that the apostates referred to were 
ever true believers or capable of be- 
coming such : — but 

1. Paul did not hold out that to the 
Hebrews as a terror, which he 
knew to be impossible. 

2. If these apostates never were be- 
lievers, they could not be admoni- 
tory examples. 

3. To represent their case as a " fall- 
ing away" — if it had never been 
hopeful — was an absurdity of which 
Paul would not be guilty. 

4. But what the apostle affirms of 
their previous state, clearly shows 
that it had been a state of sal- 
vation. 

5. The Calvinistic interpretations are 
below the force of the terms em- 



144 ANALYSIS OF 

ployed ; and they are above the 
character of reprobates. 
(2.) As to those which make it the duty of 
men to believe the gospel, and threaten 
them with punishment for not believing, 
— the Calvinistic reply is, that it is the 
duty of all men to believe the gospel, 
whether they are interested in the death 
of Christ or not ; and that they are guil- 
ty and deserving of punishment for not 
believing. (P. 301.)— But if Christ died 
not for all such persons, we think it 
plain that it cannot be their duty to be- 
lieve the gospel : and to settle this point, 
we must determine what is meant by 
believing the gospel. — The faith which 
the gospel requires of all, is, " trust in 
our Lord Jesus Christ :" true faith, then, 
and not merely assent, is implied in be- 
lieving the gospel. But, of those for 
whom Christ did not die, such faith 
cannot be required, for, 

1. It is impossible. 

2. God could not command what he 
never intended. 

3. What all are bound to believe in, is 
true. 

(3.) As to the last class of texts, viz., those 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES, 145 

which impute the blame and fault of 
their non-salvation to men themselves, 
the common reply is, that if men willed 
to come to Christ, they would have life : 
(p. 303 :)— but, 

1. Put the question to the non-elect; 
and either it is possible for them to 
come to Christ, or it is not ; if the 
former, then they may come to Christ, 
without receiving salvation : if the lat- 
ter, then the bar to their salvation is 
not in themselves. 

2. The argument from this class of texts 
is not exhausted : — for they expressly 
exclude God from all participation in 
the destruction of sinners. " God 
willeth all men to be saved," &c., texts 
which gave rise to the ancient notion 
of a secret and revealed will of God, 
a subterfuge to which, perhaps, few 
Calvinists in the present day are dis- 
posed to resort. 

Extent of the atonement — Continued. 
(Ch. xxvi.) 
As the Calvinists have no direct texts in sup- 
port of their doctrine, they resort mainly 
to implication and inference. The words 
electioii, calling, and foreknowledge j are 
10 



146 ANALYSIS or 

much relied upon in their arguments. We 
shall now proceed to examine the Scrip- 
tural meaning of them. 
I. Election. Three kinds of election are men- 
tioned in Scripture. 

(I.) That of individuals to perform some spe- 
cial service ; e. g., Cyrus was elected to 
rebuild the temple ; — Paul, to be the apos- 
tle of the Gentiles. 
(II.) Collective election. (Pp. 308-337.) 
(a.) Explanation of its use in Scripture. 

1 . Of the Jeios, as the chosen people of 
God. (P. 308.) 

2. Of the calling of believers in all na- 
tions to be in reality what the Jews 
had been typically. (Pp. 308-10.) 

(b.) Inquiry as to its effect upon the ex- 
tent of the atonement. 
1. With respect to the ancient election 
of the Jewish church, 
(1.) That election did not secure the 
salvation of every Jew individually. 
(2.) Sufficient means of salvation were 

left to the non-elect Gentiles. 
(3.) Nay, the election of the Jews 
was inteiwied.for the benefit of the 
Gentiles, — to restrain idolatry and 
diffuse spiritual truth. 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 147 

2. With respect to the election of the 
Christian church, 

(1.) That election does not infallibly 
secure the salvation of the Christian. 
(2.) It concludes nothing against the 
salvability of those who are not in 
the church. 
(3.) Christians are thus elected, not in 
consequence of, or in order to, the 
exclusion of others, but for the 
benefit of others as well as them- 
selves, 
(c.) Collective election is frequently con- 
founded with personal election, by Cal- 
vinistic commentators, especially in 
their expositions of 

Paul*s Discourse, Rom. ix, x, xi. (Pp. 312-337.) 

I. Which we shall examine, ^r^^, to deter- 
mine whether personal or collective elec- 
tion be the subject of it. (Pp. 312-325.) 
(1.) The exclusion of the Jews is the 
first topic : the righteousness of which 
exclusion Paul vindicates against the 
objections raised in the minds of the 
Jews, . , 

a.) By showing that God had limited 
the covenant to a part of the de- 



148 ANALYSIS OF 

scendants of Abraham, (1.) In the 
case of the descendants of Jacob 
himself — (2.) From Jacob he as- 
cends to Abraham, v. 7 — (3.) The 
instance of Isaac's children, v. 
10-13. On the passage, "Jacob 
have I loved, but Esau have I 
hated," which has often been per- 
verted, we remark, 1. The apostle 
is here speaking of " the seed," in- 
tended in the promise. 2. This is 
proved by Gen. xxv, 23, " Two 
nations are in thy womb," etc. 
3. Instances of individual reproba- 
tion would have been impertinent 
to the apostle's purpose. 

b.) By asking the objecting Jews to 
say whether in these instances 
there was a failure of God's cove- 
nant with Abraham? (p. 314,) he 
expressly denies any unrighteous- 
ness in them ; — but, those who 
would interpret these passages as 
referring to personal, unconditional 
election and reprobation, are bound 
to show how they could be right- 
eous. (P. 315.) 

c.) By the statement, " So then, it is 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 149 

not of him that willeth,"etc. : — con- 
taining a beautiful allusion to the 
case of Isaac and Esau. 
(2.) The next point of the discourse 
is, to show that God exercises the 
prerogative of making some notorious 
sinners the special objects of his dis- 
pleasure. (P. 316.) Here again the 
example is taken from the Jewish 
scriptures ; but observe, it is not Ish- 
mael or Esau, but Pharaoh, a Gentile, 
who was a most appropriate example 
to illustrate the case of the body of 
the unbelieving Jews, who were, when 
the apostle wrote, under the sentence 
of a terrible excision. 
(3.) In verse nineteen the Jew is 
again introduced as an objector : 
"Why doth he yet find fault?" &c. 
(P. 317.) 

(a.) This objection and the apostle's 
reply are usually interpreted as in- 
culcating upon nations visited with 
penal inflictions, the impropriety of 
debating the case with God. This 
interpretation is hardly satisfacto- 
ry; for, 
1. What end is answered by teach- 



150 ANALYSIS OF 

ing a hopeless people not to " re- 
ply against God ?" 

2. If this be the meaning, the apos- 
tle's allusion to the parable of 
the prophet, Jer., chap, xviii, is 
inappropriate ; as that parable 
supposes the time of trial, as to 
such nations, to be not yet 
passed. 

3. " Dishonour" is not destruction ; 
no potter makes a vessel on pur- 
pose to destroy it. (P. 318.) 

4. This interpretation supposes that 
the body of the Jewish nation had 
arrived already at a state of de- 
reliction, which is not the case. 

(b.) A different view of this part of 
Paul's discourse is presented. (P. 
319.) The objection of the Jew 
goes upon the ground of predesti- 
nation, which is refuted, not con- 
ceded, by the apostle : — as follows, 
1. The '-vessel" was not made 
" unto dishonour," until the clay 
had been " marred :" — i. e., the 
Jews were not dishonoured, un- 
til they had failed to conform 
with the design of God. 



WATSON^S INSTITUTES. 151 

2. Jeremiah, interpreting the para- 
ble, represents the " dishonour- 
ed" as within the reach of the 
divine favour upon repentance. 

3. What follows verse twenty-two, 
serves still further to silence the 
objector. The temporal punish- 
ment of the Jews in Judea is 
alluded to by the apostle, as a 
proof both of sovereignty and jus- 
tice; but that punishment does 
not preclude the salvability of 
the race. {P, 321.) 

(c.) The metaphor of " vessels" is still 
employed, but by " vessels of disho- 
nour," and ^* vessels of wrath," the 
apostle means vessels in different 
conditions ; the first ^ being part of 
the prophecy which signified the 
dishonoured state in which the 
Jews, for punishment and correction^ 
were placed under captivity in 
Babylon ; the second, with reference 
to the prophecy in nineteenth Je- 
remiah, had relation to the coming 
destruction of the temple, city, and 
polity of the Jews, by the Romans. 
There could be no complaint of in- 



152 ANALYSIS OF 

justice or unrighteousness, in re- 
gard to this destruction ; for, 

1. It was brought upon themselves 
by their own sins. (P. 324.) 

2. Moreover, these vessels (adapt- 
ed to destruction by their own 
sins) were endured with much 
long-suifering. 

The tenth and eleventh chapters contain no- 
thing but what refers to the collective rejection 
of the Jewish nation, and the collective election 
of all believing Jews and Gentiles into the visi- 
ble church of God. The discourse then can 
only be interpreted of collective election ; and 
we now proceed, 

11. To examine it secondly, with reference 
to the question of unconditional election, 
that is, an election of persons to eternal 
life without respect to their faith or obe- 
dience. (Pp. 326-337.) Such election 
finds no place in this chapter, though 
there are several instances of uncondi- 
tional election, — but we deny that the 
spiritual blessings of piety spring neces- 
sarily from it ; or that unbelief and ruin 
follow in like manner non-election. 
The discourse abundantly refutes such 
opinions. (P. 327.) 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 153 

(1.) The descendants of Abraham in 
the line of Isaac and Jacob were 
elected, but true faith and salvation 
did not follow as infallible conse- 
quents. So were the Gentiles at 
length elected, but obedience and sal- 
vation did not necessarily follow. 

(2.) The cases oi non-election or rejection 
were not infallibly followed by unbe- 
lief, disobedience, and punishment : 
e. g., the Ishmaelites— the Edomites 
— the rejected Jews in the apostolic 
age. (Pp. 328-9.) 

(3.) The only argument of any weight, 
for the ground that individuals are in- 
tended in this discourse, is, that as 
none are acknowledged to be the true 
church but true believers, therefore 
individual election to eternal life must 
necessarily be included in the notion 
of collective election ; and that true 
believers only, under both the old and 
new dispensations, constituted the 
^^ election ;^^ the " remnant according to 
the election of graced (P. 330.) In 
this argument there is much error. 
1. It is a mere assumption, that the 
spiritual Israelites, in opposition to 



154 ANALYSIS OF 

Israelites by birth, are anywhere 
called the " election," or the " rem- 
nant," &c. 

2. It is not true that under the old 
dispensation, the election of which 
the apostle speaks was confined to 
the spiritual seed of Abraham: 
e. g., case of Esau and Jacob, and 
their descendants. 

3. This notion is often grounded on a 
mistaken view of verses 6, 7, 8, 9, 
in this chapter : the view, namely, 
that in this passage Paul distin- 
guishes between the spiritual Is- 
raelites, and those of natural de- 
scent ; while the fact is, that he 
distinguishes between the descend- 
ants of Abraham in a certain line, 
and his other descendants. 

4. Though we grant that the election 
of bodies of men to church privi- 
leges involves the election of indi- 
viduals into the true church — still, 
this last, as Scripture plainly testi- 
fies, is not unconditional, as the 
former is, but depends upon their 
repentance and faith. 

We have thus shown that the apostle 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 155 

treats of unconditional collective elec- 
tion, but not of unconditional indivi- 
dual election. 

(III.) The third kind of election is personal 
election : or the choice of individuals to be 
the heirs of eternal life. (P. 337.) 
a.) It is not denied that true believers are 
styled in Scripture the " elect of God :" 
but the question arises, What is the im- 
port of that act of grace v^hich is term- 
ed " an election V We find it explained 
in tv^o clear passages of Scripture ; — to 
be elected, is to be separated from " the 
world," and to be " sanctified by the 
Spirit, and by the blood of Christ;" 
hence, election is not only an act done 
in time, but subsequent to the administra- 
tion of the means of salvation, 
b.) The Calvinistic doctrine that God hath 
from eternity chosen unto salvation a 
set number of men tinto faith and final 
salvation, presents a different aspect, and 
requires an appeal to the word of God. 
It has two parts : 1, the choosing of a 
determinate number of men : and 2, that 
this election is unconditional. {F . 338.) 
A. As to the choosing of a determinate 



156 ANALYSIS OF 

number of men, it is allowed by Calvin- 
ists that they have no express Scrip- 
tural evidence for this tenet. And 
(1.) As to God's eternal purpose to 
elect, we know nothing except 
from revelation, and that declares, 

(a) that he willeth all men to be 
saved ; (b) that Christ died for all 
men, in order to the salvation of all ; 
and (c) the decree of God is, " He 
that believeth shall be saved, and 
he that believeth not shall be 
damned :" and if God be unchange- 
able, this must have been his de- 
cree from all eternity : (d) if the 
fault of men's destruction lies in 
themselves, (as we have proved,) 
then the number of the elect is ca- 
pable of increase and diminution, 

(2.) This doctrine necessarily carries, 
with it that of the unconditional 
reprobation of all mankind, except 
the elect, which cannot be recon- 
ciled, (a) with the love of God : 

(b) with the wisdom of God : 
(c)/ with the grace of God: 
(d) with the compassion of God: 
— (e) with the justice of God : — 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 157 

(f) with the sincerity of God: — 

(g) with the Scriptural doctrine that 
God is no respecter of persons : — 
(h) with the Scriptural doctrine of 
the eternal salvation of infants : — 
(i) and, finally, with the proper end 
of punitive justice. 

B. We consider now the second branch 
of this doctrine, viz. : that personal 
election is unconditional. (P. 345.) 
(1.) According to this doctrine, the 
church of God is constituted on the 
sole principle of the divine purpose, 
not upon the basis of faith and obe- 
dience, which manifestl}^ contra- 
dicts the word of God. 
(2.) This doctrine of election without 
respect to faith contradicts the' his- 
tory of the commencement and first 
constitution of the church of Christ. 
(3.) There is no such doctrine in 
Scripture as the election of indi- 
viduals unto faith ; and it is incon- 
sistent with several passages which 
speak expressly of personal elec- 
tion : e.g., John xv, 1 9 ; 1 Pet. i, 2 ; 
2 Thess. ii, 13, 14. (Pp. 347-8.) 
(4.) There is another class of texts, 



158 ANALYSIS OF 

referring to believers, not individu- 
ally, but as a body forming the 
church of Christ, which texts, con- 
taining the word election, are inge- 
niously or perversely applied by 
Calvinists to the support of their 
doctrine, when in fact they do not 
contain it. Such is Eph. i, 4, 5, 6. 
Now in regard to this text, it might 
be shown, (a) that if personal 
election were contained in it, the 
choice spoken of, is not of men 
merely, but of believing men ; but, 
(b) it does not contain the doctrine 
of personal election, but that of the 
eternal purpose of God to consti- 
tute his visible church no longer 
upon the ground of descent from 
Abraham, but on that of faith in 
Christ. 
(5.) Finally, the Calvinistic doctrine 
has no stronger passage to lean 
upon. (P. 351.) We conclude by 
asking, if this doctrine be true, 
(a.) Why are we commanded " to 
make our e/ec^?'(97i sure ?" (b.) Where 
does Scripture tell us of elect unhe- 
JP^ lievers ? (c.) And how can the Spi- 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 159 

rit of truth convince such of sin 
and clanger, when they are, in fact, 
in no danger 1 

II. Having thus considered election, we come 
now to examine those texts which speak of 
the calling 2ix\A predestination of believers. 
(I.) The words " calV^ and " calling" occur 
frequently in the New Testament. The 
parable in Matthew xxii, 1-14, seems to 
have given rise to many of these ; and a 
clear interpretation of it will explain the 
use of the phrase in most other passages, 
a.) Three classes of persons are called 
in the parable: — (1.) The disobedient 
persons who made light of the call. 
(2.) Those embraced in the class of 
" destitute of the wedding garment," 
(3.) The approved guests, 
b.) As to the call itself, — (1.) The three 
classes are on an equality. (2.) No irre- 
sistible influence is employed. (3.) They 
are called into a company, or society, 
before which the banquet is spread. 
These views explain the passages in 
which the term is used in the epistles ; 
in none of them is the exclusive calling 
of any set number of men contsd^ed. 



160 ANALYSIS OF 

(II.) The synod of Dort attempt (p. 355) to 
reason the doctrine from Romans viii, 30. 
But this passage says nothing of a " set 
and determinate number of men ;" — it treats 
indeed of the privileges and hopes of be- 
lievers, but not as secured to them by any 
such decree as the synod of Dort advo- 
cates ; for, 

(1.) The matter would have been out of 

place in St. Paul's lofty conclusion of 

his high argument on justification by 

faith. 

(2.) The context relieves the text of the 

appearance of favouring the doctrine. 
(3.) The apostle does indeed speak of the 
foreknowledge of believers, taken distri- 
butively and personally, to church privi- 
leges, but this strengthens our argument 
against the use of the passage made by 
the synod of Dort; for 1. Foreknowledge 
may be simple approval, as in Romans 
xi, 2 ; and 2. If it be taken in this pas- 
sage in the sense of simple prescience, 
it will come to the same issue : for 
believers, if foreknown at all, in any 
other sense than all men are foreknown, 
must haye been foreknown as believers, 
(4.) As to the predestination spoken of in 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 161 

the text, the way is now clear : the fore- 
known believers were predestinated, call- 
ed, justified, and glorified. 

Examination of certain passages of Scrip- 
ture SUPPOSED TO limit THE EXTENT OF 

Christ's redemption. (Ch. xxvii.) 
1. John vi, 37, "All that the Father giveth to 
me shall come to me ; and him that cometh 
to me, I will in no wise cast out." The Cal- 
vinistic view of this text is, that a certain 
number were ''given'' to Christ ; and as none 
others can come to him, the doctrine of dis- 
tinguishing grace is established. 
(1.) Our first objection to this view is, that 
Christ placed the reason of the Jews' not 
coming, in themselves, John v, 38, 40, 
44, 46. 
(2.) The phrase, " to be given'' by the Father 
to Christ, is abundantly explained by the 
context. 
2. Matthew xx, 15, 16. The Calvinistic view 
here is, that God has a right, on the princi- 
ple of pure sovereignty, to afford grace to 
some, and to leave others to perish in their 
sins. The fact that this passage is the con- 
clusion of the parable of the vineyard is suf- 
ficient refutation of the iriterpret^tion. 
11 ^ 



162 ANALYSIS OF 

3. 2 Tim. ii, 19. This text bears no friend- 
ly aspect toward Calvinism. 

4. John X, 26, *' But ye believe not, because 
ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you." 
It is a sufficient reply to the Galvinistic view 
of this text, to state that men are called '^ the 
sheep of Christ" in regard to their qualities 
and actSf and not with reference to any sup- 
posed transaction between the Father and 
Christ. 

5. John xiii, 18. The term " know'^ in this text 
is evidently used in the sense of discriminat- 
ing character. 

6. John XV, 16. The word " choserC^ in this 
text is gratuitously interpreted (by Calvinists) 
as relating to an eternal election ; but Christ 
had " chosen them out of the world^^^ which 
must have been done in time. 

7. 2 Timothy i, 9, " Who hath saved us, and 
called us with a holy calling," &c. — No per- 
sonal election spoken of here : — the parallel 
passage, Eph. iii, 4-6, shows that the apostle 
was treating of the divine purpose to form the 
church out of both Jews and Gentiles. 

8. Acts xiii, 48, "And as many as were ordain- 
ed to eternal life believed." 

(1.) If the Gentiles, who believed, only did 
so because they were " ordEuned" so to do, 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 163 

then the Jews, who believed not, were not 
guilty, as it is affirmed of putting the 
WORD AWAY from them. 

(2.) The Calvinistic view carries with it the 
notion that all the elect Gentiles at Anti- 
och believed at once^ and that no more re- 
mained to be converted. 

(3.) Some Calvinists render the words " de- 
termined,^^ or " ordered," for eternal life. 

(4.) In no place in the New Testament where 
the same word occurs, is it ever employed 
to convey the meaning of destiny, or pre- 
destination. 

9. Luke X, 20. Our Calvinistic friends forget, 
in interpreting this text, that names may be 
" blotted out of the book of life." 

10. Prov. xvi, 4. The true meaning is, that God 
renders even those who have made them- 
selves wicked, the means of glorifying his 
justice, in their punishment. 

11. John xii, 37, 40. Quotation from Isaiah. In 
examining this passage, we find, 

(1.) That it does not affirm that the eyes of 
the Jews should be blinded by a divine 
agency, as Mr. Scott and the Calvinists 
assume. In every view of the passage, the 
responsible agent is "this people" — the 
perverse and obstinate Jews themselves. 



164 ANALYSIS OF 

(2.) A simple prophecy is not a declaration 
of purpose at all ; but the declaration of a 
future event. 

(3.) Even admitting the Calvinistic view of 
this passage, it would afford no proof of 
general election and reprobation, since it 
has application to the unbelieving part of 
the Jews only. 

12. Jude 4. These certain men had heen fore- 
told in the Scriptures, or their punishment 
predicted. There is nothing here of eternal 
•purpose. 

13. 1 Cor. iv, 7, " For who maketh thee 
to differ from another ?" A favourite argu- 
ment with Calvinists is founded on this text ; 
and a dilemma raised, on the supposition of 
gospel offers being made to two men, why 
one accepts and the other rejects ? They 
answer that election alone solves the ques- 
tion. But 

(1.) Put the question as to one man, at two 
different periods : — and election will not 
solve this difficulty : of course, then, it will 
not solve the other. 

(2.) The question of the apostle has refer- 
ence to gifts and endowments, not to a dif- 
ference in religious state . 

(3.) Following out their view, the doctrine 



WATSON'S IXSTITUTES. 165 

would follow that sufficiency of grace is 
denied to the wicked, which would remove 
all their responsibility. 
14. Acts xviii, 9, 10, "... for I have much 
people in this city." This may mean, either 
that there were many devout people in the 
city : — or that there would be many subse- 
quently converted there. 

Theories which limit the extent of the 
DEATH OF Christ. (Ch. xxviii.) 
We shall notice in this chapter the doctrines 
of predestination, etc. 
I. As stated hy Calvin himself, and hy Calvinis- 
tic theologians and churches. (Pp. 381-410.) 
(I.) Calvin. 

1 . Statement of his opinions from the " In- 
stitutes." (Pp. 381-2.) 

2. His answers to objections shown to be 
weak and futile, (pp. 383-4,) e. g. 

a.) The objection that the system is un- 
just ; which he answers by asserting 
that itis the will of God — thus making 
four evasions, 1,2, 3, 4. 

b.) The objection that if corruption is 
the cause of man's destruction, the 
corruption itself was an effect of the 
divine decree ; which he answers by 



166 Ax\ALYSIS OF 

referring again to the sovereign will 
of God. (P. 384.) 

3. His attempts to reconcile his doctrine 
with man^s demerit^ and to relieve it of 
the charge of making God the *author of 
sin, shown to be feeble and contradic- 
tory. (Pp. 385-7.) 

4. His system not reducible to sublapsa- 
rianism. (P. 388.) 

5. His tenets shown to be in opposition to 
the doctrines of the first ages. (P. 389.) 

6. Their history from the time of Augus- 
tine to Calvin. (P. 390.) 

(n.) Calvinistic theologians and churches. 
1 . Three leading theories prevalent among 

the reformed churches prior to the synod 

of Dort. 

a.) Supralapsarian : — (1.) Decree: to save 
certain men by grace, and to condemn 
others by justice. (2.) Means: crea- 
tion of Adam, and ordination of sin. 
(3.) Operation: irresistible grace pro- 
ducing faith and final salvation. 
(4.) Result : that reprobates have no 
grace, and nq^ capacity of believing 
and of being saved. (Pp. 391-2.) 

b.) Also supralapsarian, but differing 
somewhat from (a.) viz., that it does 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 167 

not lay down the creation or the fall 
as a mediate cause, foreordained of 
God for the execution of the decree of 
reprobation ; but yet Armiriius shows 
that, according to this view, the fall is 
a necessary means for its exercise, and 
thus God is made the author of sin. 
(Pp. 392-3.) 
c.) Suhlapsarian^ in which man, as the 

object of predestination, is considered 

as fallen. 

(1 .) Statement of the doctrine. Its basis 
is, that the whole human race are lia- 
ble to eternal death in consequence 
of Adam's transgression. 

(2.) Refutation. " The wages of sin 
is death," but " sin is the transgres- 
sion of the law." 

1. If the race be contemplated as con- 
tained seminally in Adam, then the 
whole race would have perished in 
Adam, without the vouchsafement 
of mercy to any. 

2. If contemplated as to have not only 
a potential but a real existence, 
then the doctrine is, that every 
man of the race is absolutely liable 
to eternal death for the sin of 



168 ANALYSIS OF 

Adam, to which he was not a con- 
senting party. 

3. If the foreknowledge of actual 
transgression be contemplated by 
the decree, then the actual sins of 
men are either evitable or neces- 
sary, — if the former, then repro- 
bates may be saved : if the latter, 
none are responsible. 

4. It is alleged that Paul represents 
all men under condemnation to 
eternal death in consequence of 
their connection with the first 
Adam : but, (p. 397,) 

a.) In the gospel " this is the con- 
demnation, that men love dark- 
ness rather than light :" — hence 
the previous state of condemna- 
tion was not unalterable. 

b.) In Scripture final condemnation 
is always placed upon the ground 
of actual sin. 

c.) The true sense of the apostle in 
Rom. V, is to be obtained from a 
careful examination of the entire 
argument : — he is not represent- 
ing, as Calvinists have it, the 
condition in which the human 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 169 

race would have been, if Christ 
had not interposed, but its actual 
condition, both in consequence 
of the fall of man and the inter- 
vention of Christ. (Pp. 398-400.) 

2. Decisions of the synod of Dort : from 
Scott's translation of the " Judgment of 
the Synod," &c., read in the great church 
at Dort, in 1619. 

By extracts from Acts i, 4, 5, 6, 10, and 
15, it is clear that Dr. Heylin gave a 
true summary of the eighteen articles on 
predestination, in the following words : 
— " That God, by an absolute decree, 
hath elected to salvation a very small 
number of men, without any regard to 
their faith and obedience whatsoever ; 
and excluded from saving grace all the 
rest of mankind, and appointed them by 
the same decree to eternal damnation, 
without any regard to their infidelity 
and impenitency." (Pp. 401-407.) 

3. The church of Scotland expresses its 
doctrine on these topics in the answers 
to the 12th and 13th questions of its 
large catechism ; in which there ap- 
pears a strict conformity to the doctrines 
of Calvin. 



170 ANALYSIS OF 

4. The church of the Vaudois, in Piedmont, 
by the confession of A. D. 1120, esta- 
blish the doctrine that Christ died for 
the salvation of the whole world ; but 
in the seventeenth century pastors were 
introduced from Geneva, and the con- 
fession of 1655 embraces the doctrine, 
and almost the very words, of Calvin on 
this point. 

5. The French churches, in their confes- 
sion of 1558, declare Calvinistic sen- 
timents, but the expressions are guard- 
ed and careful. 

6. The Westminster Confession gives the 
sentiments of the English Presbyterian 
churches, and of the church of Scot- 
land. In chapter iii, the doctrine of 
predestination is advanced in conformity 
with the most unmitigated parts of Cal- 
vin's Institutes. 

11. As held in certain modifications of the Calvin- 
istic scheme. (Pp. 410-422.) 
(I.) Baxterianism, advanced by Richard Bax- 
ter in his treatise of Universal Redemption^ 
and in his Methodus Theologies: — but de- 
rived from the writings of Camero, and 
defended by Amyraut and others. 
1. It differs ftofti high Calvinism, as to the 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 171 

doctrine of satisfaction : — as the system 
explicitly asserts that Christ made satis- 
faction by his death equally for the sins 
of every man. Baxter draws many 
*' absurd consequents from the doctrine 
which denieth universal satisfaction." 
(Pp. 413-16.) 
2. But from an examination of his entire 
scheme, it amounts only to this, — that 
although a conditional satisfaction has 
been purchased by Christ for all men, 
yet Christ has not purchased for all men 
the power of performing the required 
condition of salvation. — Baxter gives to 
the elect irresistible effectual grace, but 
to others, sufficient grace, which is called 
by himself, aptly enough, " sufficient in- 
effectual grace." He admits that all men 
may have grace to bring them nearer 
Christ, but coming nearer to Christ, and 
nearer to saving faith, are with him quite 
distinct. His concern seems to be, to 
show, not how the non-elect might be 
saved, but how they might with some 
plausibility be damned. Quotations from 
Curcelloeus, Dr. Womack, and Maclaine, 
are in point. (Pp. 417-421.) 
(II.) Dr. Williams^s scheme is in substance 



172 ANALYSIS OF 

the same as the theory of supralapsa- 
rian reprobation. In all other mitigated 
schemes, the " sufficiency of grace" is un- 
derstood in Baxter's sense. The labour 
of all these theories is to find out some 
pretext for punishing those that perish, in- 
dependent of the Scriptural reason, their 
rejection of a mercy free for all. 
III. As to their origin. They seem to have arisen 
not from a careful examination of Scripture, 
but from metaphysical subtleties, for by these 
they have, at all times, been chiefly supported. 
(I.) Eternal decrees. 

1. This term is nowhere employed in 
Scripture ; its signification, (if it be used 
at all,) must be controlled by Scripture. 
The decrees of God can only Scrip- 
turally signify the determination of his 
will in his government of the world he 
has made. 

2. These decrees are, in Scripture, refer- 
red to two classes :; — (1) a determination 
to do certain things ; and (2) a determi- 
nation to permit certain things to be 
done by free and accountable creatures. 
This last does not involve the conse- 
quence of making God the author of sin, 

3.. That many of the divine decrees are 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 173 

conditional we have the testimony of 
Scripture, which abounds with examples 
of decrees to which conditions are an- 
nexed. We have also instances, as in 
the case of Eli, of the revocation of the 
divine decrees. (Pp. 425-8.) 
(II.) The prescience of God. 

1. The Calvinistic popular argument is, 
tliat as the final condition of every man 
is foreseen, it must be certain, and there- 
fore inevitable and necessary. The an- 
swer is, that certainty and necessity are 
two perfectly distinct predicaments ; as 
certainty exists in the mind foreseeing, 
butnecessityqualifies the action foreseen. 

2. The scholastic argument. 

(a.) The schoolmen distinguished be- 
tween (1.) Scientia indejinita — the 
knowledge of possible things, and 
(2.) Scientia visionis, the knowledge 
which God has of all real existences : 
— to which the anti-predestinarians 
added (3.) Scientia media, to express 
God's knowledge of the actions of 
free agents, and the divine acts con- 
sequent upon them. 

(b.) Absolute predestination is identified 
with scientia visionis -by the C^-lvin- 



174 ANALYSIS OF 

ists : illustrated by an extract from 
HilVs Lectures. (P. 431.) 
The sophistry of Dr. Hill's statement lies in 
this, that the determination of the divine will to 
produce the universe is made to include a de- 
termination " to produce the whole series of 
beings and events that were then future :"— 
while among the " beings" to be produced were 
some endowed with free will. If this be de- 
nied, then man is not accountable for his per- 
sonal offences : if allowed, then his (say) sin- 
ful acts cannot have been determined in the 
same manner by the divine will, as the produc- 
tion of the universe and the beings which com- 
posed it. 

(III.) The human will (P. 435.) 

1 . Calvinists find it necessary to the consis- 
tency of their theory that the volitions^ as 
well as the acts, of man should be placed in 
bondage : and their doctrine fairly stated, 
is, that the will is determined to one 
class of objects, no other being possible. 
The Scriptural doctrine is, that by the 
grace of God, man, who without that 
grace would be morally incapable of 
choosing any thing but evil, is endow- 
ed with the power of choosing good. 
(P. 436.) 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 175 

2. More moderate Calvinists contend that 
transgressors are responsible for their 
evil acts, because they are done will- 
ingly, although their will could not but 
choose them. We reply, that this is 
only the case where the time of trial is 
past, as in devils and apostates ; and 
then only because these are personally 
guilty of having vitiated their own wills : 
but the case is different as to proba- 
tioners ; for, 

(1.) It is decided by the word of God, 

that men who perish might have 

" chosen life." (P. 438.) 
(2.) The natural reason of mankind is 

in direct opposition to the doctrine, 

(P. 439.) 

3. The metaphysical doctrine is, that the 
will is swayed by motives which arise 
from circumstances beyond the control 
of man ; but, (p. 439,) 

(1.) This still leaves us in the difficulty, 
that men are bound by a chain of 
events established by an Almighty 
power. 

(2.) The doctrine is contradicted by 
the language of men in all countries 
and ages. 



176 ANALYSIS OF 

(3.) We deny the necessary connection 
between motive and volition : that the 
mind acts generally under the influ- 
ence of motives may be granted, but 
that it is operated upon by them ne- 
cessarily ^ is contradicted, 
(a.) By the fact of our often acting 
under the weakest reason, which is 
the character of all sins against 
judgment ; and 
(b.) By the fact that we have power 
to displace one motive by another, 
and to control those circumstances 
from which motives flow. 
(IV.) The divine sovereignty. (P. 442.) 
The Calvinistic doctrine is, that God does 
what he wills, only because he wills it. 
But it can be shown from Scripture,, 
that the acts of the divine will are un- 
der the direction of the divine wisdom, 
goodness, and justice. 
(V.) The case oi heathen nations is sometimes 
referred to by Calvinists as presenting 
equal difficulties to those urged against 
election and reprobation. But the cases 
are not parallel, unless it be granted that 
heathen, as such, are excluded from hea- 
ven. (P. 444.) 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 177 

1. Heathen are bad enough, but the ques- 
tion is not what they are, but what they 
might be : — they are under the patri- 
archal dispensation ; and 

2. St. Paul affirms that the divine law has 
not perished from among them, but that 
if they live up to the light which they 
possess, they may be saved. 

(VI.) Irresistible grace. We admit that man, 
in his simply natural state, is insufficient 
of himself to think or do any thing of a 
saving tendency ; and that when the Holy 
Spirit is vouchsafed, we are often entirely 
passive in the first instance ; but we con- 
tend that the grace of God has been be- 
stowed upon all men, inasmuch as all are 
required to do those things which have a 
saving tendency. These premises 

1. Establish the justice of God in the con- 
demnation of men, and 

2. Secure the glory of our salvation to the 
grace of God. (P. 448.) 

C. Further BENEFITS of redemption. 
(Oh. xxix.) 
. Entire sanctijlcation o( believers. That there 
is a distinction between a regenerate state 
and a state of perfect holiness, \% Sufficiently 
12 



178 ANALYSIS OF 

proved by the exhortations to believers, in 
1 Thess. V, 23 ; and 2 Cor. vii, 1. 
1. The time when we are to expect this 
blessing has been disputed : it is admitted 
that the soul must be entirely cleansed 
before it can pass into heaven, but many 
contend that the final stroke to corruption 
can only be given at death : — but 
(1.) The promise of sanctification is no- 
where restricted in Scripture to the arti- 
cle of death. 
(2.) The soul's union with the body is 
nowhere represented as a necessary ob- 
stacle to its entire sanctification. Rom. 
vii, has indeed been adduced in proof of 
this, but it is clear that the apostle is 
giving the experience of one yet under 
the law, and not in a state of deliverance 
by Christ. 
(3.) This doctrine is disproved by those pas- 
sages which connect sanctification with 
the subsequent exhibition of its fruits 
in life. 
(4.) It is disproved, also, by all those pas- 
sages which require us to bring forth 
the fruits of the Spirit; for these are 
required of us in perfection and maturi- 
ty, and necessarily suppose the entire 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 179 

sanctification of the soul from the oppo- 
site and antagonist evils. 

(5.) This doctrine involves other antiscrip- 
tural consequences — that the seat of sin 
is in the flesh ; and that the flesh must 
not only lust against the Spirit, but on 
many occasions be the conqueror. 

We conclude, then, that as sanctification 
can neither be referred to the hour of 
death nor placed subsequently to this 
life, it is an attainment to which be- 
lievers are called during this life. 
2 The manner of sanctification. It may be, 

(1) gradual, or (2) instantaneous. 
3. Objections to this doctrine. 

(1.) It supposes future impeccability. Nay, 
the angels sinned, and so did our first 
parents. 

(2.) It renders the atonement and inter- 
cession of Christ superfluous. Nay, for 
this state of sanctification is maintained 
by the constant influences of the Holy 
Spirit, vouchsafed through Christ's in- 
tercession. 

(3.) It shuts out the use of the prayer, 
" forgive us our trespasses." But, a) this 
prayer is designed for men in a mixed 
condition : b) all sin rnust not bje con- 



180 ANALYSIS OF 

tinned in order that this prayer may be 
employed : and c) the defects and infir- 
mities of a being naturally imperfect, 
are not inconsistent with moral holiness. 

II. The right to pray is another benefit which 
accrues to believers : and so is 

III. The special providence of God. 

IV. Victory over death is also awarded to them. 

V. The immediate reception of the soul into a 
state of blessedness. " The sacred writers 
proceed on the supposition that the soul and 
the body are naturally distinct and separable, 
and that the soul is susceptible of pain or 
pleasure during that separation." Quotation 
from Campbell. 

VI. Resurrection of the body. There is some 
dispute in regard to this doctrine, whether it 
implies a resurrection of the substance of the 
body, or of a minute and indestructible germ, 
1. The only passage of Scripture which 

seems to favour the germ theory, is 1 Cor. 
XV, 35, *' How are the dead raised up ? and 
with what body do they come?" These 
two questions both imply a doubt as to the 
fact — not an inquiry as to the modus 
agendi : and the apostle answers them by 
showing, in answer to ihe frst question, that 
there is nothing incredible in the thing : 



WATSOX'S INSTITUTES. 181 

and in answer to the second^ that the doc- 
trine of our reunion with the body implies 
nothing contrary to the hopes of liberation 
from the " burden of this flesh," because 
of the glorified qualities which God is able 
to give to matter. (P. 463.) 
2. There are several difficulties connected 
with this theory : for on its hypothesis 
(1.) There is no resurrection of the body : 
for the germ cannot be called the body. 
(2.) There is no resurrection from death at 
all, but a vegetation from a secret prin- 
ciple of life. 
(3.) It is substantially the same with the 
pagan doctrine of metempsychosis. 
PiXi objection to the resurrection of the body 
has been drawn from the changes of its sub- 
stance during life. This does not affect the 
doctrine that the body which is laid in the grave 
shall be raised up. " But," we are told, " the 
same bodies that sin may not be punished." 
We answer, that the soul is the only rewardable 
subject, — the body is its instrument. 



182 ANALYSIS OF 



PART THIRD. 



Morals of Christianity. 

Outline. 

(I.) The moral law. (Ch. i.) 
(II.) The duties we owe to God. (Ch. ii, iii.) 
(III.) Duties to our neighbour. (Ch. iv.) 

(I.) The moral law. (Ch. i.) 

Preliminary observations, — 

(1.) The morals of the New Testament are 
not presented to us in the form of a regu- 
lar code. 
(2.) The divine authority of the Old Testa- 
ment is everywhere presupposed. 
I. The moral laws of the Old Testament pass into 
the Christian code. (Pp. 469, 470.) 

1. The ceremonial law is repealed, being 
adumbrative and temporary ; 

2. The political law also ; but 

3. The moral precepts diXenot repealed ; but 
even incidentally re-enacted, scil.^ Christ's 
declaration, '^ I am not come to destroy 
the law, but to fulfil ;" and Paul's, " Do we 
then make void the law through faith?" 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 183 

The argument, then, from the want of 
formal re-enactment, has no weight. 
4. The entire decalogue is brought into the 
Christian code by a distinct injunction of 
its separate precepts. (Pp. 470-1.) 

II. These laws, in the Christian code, stand in 
other and higher circumstances than under the 
Mosaic dispensation. 

1 . They are extended more expressly to the 
heart. 

2. They are carried out into a greater variety 
of duties. 

3. There is a more enlarged injunction of 
positive and particular virtues. 

4. All overt acts are connected with corres- 
ponding principles. 

5. These laws are connected with promises 
of divine assistance. 

6. They have a living illustration in the ex- 
ample of Christ. 

7. They are connected with higher sanc- 
tions. 

III. All attempts to teach morals, independent of 
Christianity, mUst be of mischievous tendency, 
(Pp. 472-4.) 

1. Because such attempts convey the impres- 
sion that reason alone could discover the 
duty of man. 



184 ANALYSIS OF 

2. Because they displace what is perfect for 
what is imperfect. 

3. Because they turn away from the revealed 
law to inferior considerations, such as 
beauty, fitness, (fee. 

4. Because they either enjoin duties merely 
outward in the act, or else assume that hu- 
man nature is able to cleanse itself. 

5. Because that by separating doctrines from 
morals, they propose a new plan, other 
than that of the gospel, for renovating and 
moralizing the world. Yet moral philo- 
sophy, if properly guarded, and taken in 
connection with the whole Christian sys- 
tem, is not to be undervalued. 

IV. As to the reasons on which moral precepts 
rest, it may be remarked, 

1. Some rest wholly on the authority of a 
revealer ; 

2. Others are accompanied with manifest 
rational evidence ; 

3. Others partially disclose ihe'u rationale 
to the anxious inquirer. • 

V. With respect to the application of genei^al 
precepts, wide observation is necessary. 

1. The precepts must be general. 

2. Exceptions to general rules should be 
watched with jealousy. 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 185 

YI. Grounds of /noral obligation. 

1 . " Eternal and necessary fitness of things," 
leaves the question still open. 

2. ** Moral sense," also unsatisfactory ; for 
(a.) Its indications are neither perfect nor 

uniform. 
(b.) Its mandates have no authority. 

3. '' Doctrine of the greatest good," — circui- 
tous and impossible in practice. 

4 . The will of God, then, the only true ground 
of moral obligation. The obligation is 
founded on the relation of the creature to 
the Creator. 

VII. Nature of moral 7'ectitude. (Payne's 
view.) 

1. We sustain various relations to God. 

2. We sustain various relations to each 
other. 

Virtue is the conformity or harmony of man's 
aftections or actions, with the various re- 
lations in which he has been placed : and 
since these relations were constituted by 
God, rectitude may be regarded as con- 
formity to the moral nature of God, the 
ultimate standard of virtue. 



186 ANALYSIS OF 

(II.) The duties we owe to God. (Ch.ii,iii.) 
Summed up in Scripture under the word 
godliness, embracing 
I. Internal principles. 
1. Submission to God. 

(a.) Grounded on the obligations (1) of 

creation, (2) of redemption 
(b.) Regulated by his will, which is the 
highest rule of moral virtue, 

(1) Because of its authority. 

(2) Because it defines and enforces 
every branch of duty. 

(3) Because it annuls every contrary 
rule. 

(4) Because, instead of lowering its 
claims to suit man's weakness, it con- 
nects itself with the offer of strength 
from on high. 

(5) Because it accommodates itself to 
no man's interests. 

(6) Because it admits no exceptions in 
obedience. 

2. Love to God. 

(a) Its nature. (Pp. 481-2.) 

(b) Its importance in securing obe- 
dience. (Pp. 482-3.) 

3. Trust in God. 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. ISt 

(a) Grounded on the divine injunction : 
probable reason^ to secure our peace 
of mind. 

(b) Measured by the divine promises of 
help in the word of God. 

(c) Hence connected with conversion, 
necessarily. (Pp. 484-5.) 

. 4. Fear of God. 

(a.) Its nature: (1.) Reverential, not 
servile, yet (2.) Involving a sense of 
our conditional liability to his dis- 
pleasure, 
(b.) Its practical influence. 
5. Holiness rests upon these moral prin- 
ciples and habits. 
II. External duties. 
A. Prayer. 

(a.) It is enjoined in Scripture, Matt, vii, 7; 
Luke xxi, 36 ; Phil, iv, 6 ; 1 Thess. v, 17 ; 
where it is required to be (1.) Earnest, 
John iv, 24 ; Rom. xii, 12. (2.) Impor- 
tunate, Luke xi ; 2 Corinthians xii, 8, 9. 
(3.) Off'ered for particular blessings, 
Phil, iv, 6 ; Psa. cxxii, 6 ; Zech. x, 1 ; 
1 Tim. ii, 1-3, etc. 
(b.) The reason on which it rests. We 
can infer from Scripture, 
1. That it cannot of itself produce iu 



ANALYSIS OF 

man a fitness for the reception of 
God's mercies. 

2. That it is not an instrument but a con- 
dition of grace. (Pp. 489-90.) 

3. But that it preserves in men's minds 
a sense of God's agency in the world 
and of the dependance of all creatures 
upon him. (P. 491.) 

(c.) Objections to this duty. 

1. One is founded on predestination. 

a. Answer on predestinarian prin- 
ciples — insufficient and contra- 
dictory. 

b. True answer, that although God 
has absolutely predetermined some 
things, there are others which he 
has conditionally predetermined. 

2. A second is founded on the perfec- 
tions of the divine character. Paley's 
answer. 

3. A third is, that it is hard to conceive 
how prayer can affect the case of 
others. 

a. If it were so, that would not affect 
the duty. 

b. But it is no harder to conceive 
than why one man's virtues or 
vices should affect the condition 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 189 

of Others, which is the case every 
day. (Pp. 493-4.) 
(d.) Division of prayer. Four branches. 

1. Ejaculatory. 

a. Its nature, b. Its advantages. 

2. Private. 

a. Founded upon Christ's injunction 
and example. 

b. Designed to produce unlimited con- 
fidence in God our Father. 

3. Family. 

a. Paley's view of it defective. 

b. Its obligation shown, (1.) From the 
very constitution of a family. (Pp. 
496-7.) (2.) From the fact that 
the earliest patriarchal worship was 
family worship, which was not re- 
voked either by Judaism or Chris- 
tianity. (Pp. 498-9.) 

c. Its advantages. 

4. Public. 

a. Its obligation shown. (P. 500.) 
(1.) From the example of public 
worship among the Jews. (2.) By 
inference from the command to pub- 
lish the gospel implying assem- 
blies. (3.) By direct precepts, e. g., 
Paul's Epistles are commanded to 



190 ANALYSIS OF 

be read in churches. (4.) From 
the practice of the primitive age, 
shown from St. Paul and St. Cle- 
ment, 
b. Its advantages. (P. 501.) 
(e.) Forms of prayer. 

1. Worship should be spiritual — which 
was doubtless the character of that 
of the primitive church. (P. 502.) 
Latin and Greek corruptions. The 
liturgies of the reformed churches pu- 
rified from these corruptions. 

2. Objections to forms of prayer. 

a. Absolute. But 

(1.) This objection involves princi- 
ples which cannot be acted upon. 
(P. 503.) 

(2.) It disregards example and an- 
tiquity. Example of Jews : of 
John Baptist : of Christ : of pri- 
mitive church. (P. 504.) 

b. It is objected that ^' forms com- 
posed for one age become unfit for 
another.'' But 

(1.) The form maybe modified. 
(2.) In fact, such forms have not 

become obsolete among us. 
(3.) If#opinions become unscrip- 
h'^w ,, ■ " ■ 

%-- 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 191 

tural, the form is a safeguard 
against heresy. 

c. " The repetition of the form pro- 
duces weariness and inattention." 
Answer. 

(1.) The devout will not grow 

weary. 
(2.) The undevout will, even if 

extempore prayers are used. 

d. '' Forms must take too general a 
character." (P. 506.) Ans. 

(1.) This is not true of the Liturgy 
of the Church of England. 

(2.) If extempore prayer be allow- 
ed also, the objection has no 
weight. 

3. Objections to extempore prayer. 

a. It gives rise to extravagant ad- 
dresses to God. Ans. This will 
only be the case where the preach- 
ers are foolish or incompetent. 

b. It confuses the minds of the hear- 
ers. Ans. This lay against the in- 
spired prayers in the Bible when 
first uttered ; and would now lie 
against all occasional forms. Facts, 
too, disprove it. 

4. Conclusion. That each mode has 



-V 



h 



192 ANALYSIS OF 

its advantages, and that their pro- 
per combination forms the best pub- 
lic service. 

B. Praise and thanksgiving. 

a. Psalms and hymns to be sung with 
the voice, and united with the melody 
of the heart, are of apostolic injunction. 

b. Uses. 1) To acknowledge God; 2) To 
promote suitable sentiments of gratitude 
and dependance in our hearts^ 

C. Observance of the Lord^ s day . (Ch. iii.) 
I. Obligation. (Pp. 508-520.) 

(I.) Though the observance is nowhere 
enjoined in so many words, yet, on 
the supposition that the sabbath was 
instituted at the creation, we derive 
its obligation with great clearness 
from the Scriptures, 
a. As to the observance of a sabbath 
in general. 

(1.) Inferentially , from the history 
of its observance from the crea- 
tion down to the period of the 
gospel narrative, (p. 509,) while 
no scripture indicates its aboli- 
tion. 
(2.) Directly, since the decalogue is 
binding on us, proved, (p. 510,) 






WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 193 

(a.) By our Lord's declaration 
that he " came not to destroy 
the law and the prophets." 
(b.) By the text, "the sabbath 

was made for man." 
(c.) By St. Paul's reply, (Rom. 
hi, 31,) "Do we then make 
void the law through faith ?" 
, As to the observance of a particu- 
lar day 

(1.) The change from the seventh 
to the first day was made by in- 
spired men. (P. 511.) 
(2.) This change did not alter the 
law of the sabbath, which was 
not so circumstantial as to re- 
quire uniform modes of reckon- 
ing time, and observance of lati- 
tudes and longitudes for its ful- 
filment. (P. 512.) 
(3.) The original command says 
nothing of the epoch when the 
reckoning should begin. (Hol- 
den, pp. 512-13.) 
(4.) But, for the sake o{ public wor- 
ship, the sabbath should be wm- 
formly observed by a whole com- 
munity at the same time. 
13 



194 ANALYSIS OF 

(II.) But it has been denied that the sabbath 
was instituted at the creation. (P. 514.) 
a. Paley's ground, as summed up and 
answered by Holden. His principal 
ground is, " that the first institution 
of the sabbath took place during the 
sojourning of the Jews in the wilder- 
ness," and from the passage in Exod. 
xvi, he infers 

1. " That if the sabbath had been in- 
stituted at creation there would be 
some mention of it in the history 
of the patriarchal ages." But this 
history is very brief: there are 
omissions in it more extraordinary, 
e. g., prayer and circumcision : the 
sabbath is hardly mentioned in ' 
Joshua, Judges, Ruth, &c. ; but the 
observance of it seems to be inti- 
mated by the division of time into 
weeks, in the patriarchal history. 

2. " That there is not, in Exod. xvi, 
any intimation that the sabbath was 
only the revival of an ancient insti- 
tution." But the fact is, that it is 
mentioned exactly in the way an 
historian would, who had occasion 
to speak of a well-known institution. 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 195 

3. Gen., chapter ii, is next adduced by 
Dr. Paley as not inconsistent with 
his opinion, as he concurs with 
those critics who suppose that 
Moses mentioned the sanctification 
of the sabbath in that place, by pro- 
lepsis, in the order of connection, 
not of time. But this doctrine 
is altogether gratuitous, and also 
inconsistent with the design of the 
sacred historian to give a clear and 
faithful history. 
The law of the sabbath, then, is univer- 
sal, and not peculiar to the Jews. 
II. Mode of observing the Christian sab- 
bath. (Pp. 520-4.) 

1. There are two extremes : (1.) To re- 
gard the sabbath merely as a pruden- 
tial institution ; (2.) To neglect the 
distinction between the moral and the 
ceremonial law of Moses : but yet, 

2. Those precepts of the Levitical code 
which relate to the sabbath, are of 
great use to us, (p. 522,) though inde- 
pendent of these, 

3. We have, throughout the Scriptures, 
abundant guidance : by which we 
learn, a.) That the sabbath is to be a 



196 ANALYSIS OF " 

day of rest and devotion : b.) That 
works of merc)^ are not unlawful : 
c.) But that the management of public 
charities is too secular an employ- 
ment for the sabbath : d.) And that 
amusements and recreations are out of 
place, nay, sinful. 

(III.) Duties to our neighbour. (Ch. iv.) 

I. Charity, which is to be considered, 

1. As to its source. 

That source is a regenerated state of mind. 

2. As to its exclusiveness. It shuts out all 
1) anger; 2) implacability; 3) revenge; 
4) prejudice ; 5) evil speaking ; 6) petty 
aggressions, though legal ; 7) artificial 
distinctions, as its limitations. 

3. As to its active expression. 

(1.) It delights in sympathy, liberality, 
&;c., as it is not merely negative. 

(2.) It dictates and regulates works of 
mercy. 

(3.) It teaches us that we are only stew- 
ards of the divine goodness. (P. 528.) 

II. Justice. (I.) Ethical: (II.) Economical: 
(III.) Political. 

(I.) Ethical yxsXiQQ respects 

A, Man's natural rights, which are, 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 197 

1 . Right to life ; which is guarded by the 
precept, "Thou shalt not kill," &c. 

2. Right of iiwperty ; guarded by the 
law, " Thou shalt not steal nor covet." 

3. Right oi liberty ; manstealing is class- 
ed in the New Testament with the 
greatest crimes. In noticing the ques- 
tion of slavery, we remark, 

a.) That slavery did exist under the 
Jewish law ; but of a much milder 
type than that which prevailed in 
the surrounding nations ; and all 
that can be inferred from it is, that 
a legislature may, in certain cases, 
be justified in mitigating, rather 
than abolishing, the evil, 

b.) Every Christian government binds 
itself to be regulated by the princi- 
ples of the New Testament, which 
are obviously opposed to slavery. 
(Pp. 531-2.) 

c.) Modern African slavery of course 
calls loudly for the application of 
such principles. The slaves have 
never lost the right to liberty ; and 
that liberty should be restored. 
The manner of its restoration is in 
the power of government, provided, 



198 ANALYSIS OF 

1. That the emancipation be sin- 
cerely determined upon at some 
future time : 2. That it be not de- 
layed beyond the period which the 
general interest of the slaves them- 
selves prescribes : 3. That all pos- 
sible means be adopted to render 
freedom a good to them. 
B. The question may be asked whether 
man himself has the power of surren- 
dering these great natural rights at his 
own option ? 
1. With respect to life, 

(1.) Where duty calls, (as in case of 
invasion, or when our allegiance 
to Christ must otherwise be laid 
down,) we are not only at liberty 
to take the risk, but bound to do it. 
(2.) Suicide was considered unlawful 
by the ancients, on the ground of 
its being a violation of God's ap- 
pointment : and modern ethical 
writers have added little to the 
force of their doctrines on the sub- 
ject. Of course their views are in- 
efficient. " Thou shalt not kill" is 
the divine prohibition against kill- 
ing ourselves, as well as others : — 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 199 

not, " Thou shalt do no murder," as 
Archbishop Whately incorrectly 
quotes, and then reasons upon. 
The crime of murder lies in the 
fact that man is made in the image 
of God — immortal. Self-murder is 
iinpardonable, 
(3.) Duelling invoh^es the two crimes 
of murder and suicide. 

2. With respect to property. Chris- 
tianity teaches us that property is a 
trust — and that gambling, prodigality, 
&c., are violations of that trust. 

3. Liberty cannot be voluntarily parted 
with under the Christian dispensation. 

C The right of conscience is now to be 
considered. 

1. The duty of reUgious worship and 
opinions, and the right to the profes- 
sion of the latter and practice of the 
former are strictly correlative ; and as 
the obligation to perform the duty 
cannot be removed, so neither can the 
right to its performance be destroyed. 

2. But government has authority to take 
cognizance of the manner in which 
this right is exercised, and can inter- 
fere (1,) where the worship is vexa- 



200 ANALYSIS OF 

tious to society in general, or, (2,) the 
opinions subversive of the principles 
of social order, or (3,) where dan- 
gerous political opinions are connect- 
ed with religious notions. 
3. The case of those who reject reve- 
lation must be considered on its own 
merits. (P. 542.) 

(1.) Simple Deism may afibrd such a 
plea of conscience as the state 
ought to admit, though rejected by 
a sound theologian. 
(2.) To Atheism no toleration can be 
extended by a Christian govern- 
ment ; — for, a) jurisprudence can- 
not coexist with such doctrines: 
b) they are subversive of the morals 
of the people : and, c) no con- 
science can be pleaded by their vo- 
taries for the avowal of such tenets. 
(II.) Economical justice respects those relations 
which grow out of the existence of men in 
families. 

1 . Relation of husband and wife, founded on 

the institution of marriage. 

(1.) Obligation of ms,umge. General, but 

not imperative, on every man, in all 

circumstances. Exceptions require the 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 20] 

justification of an equal or paramount 

obligation. 
(2.) Ends of marriage. 

(a.) To produce the greatest number of 
healthy children. 

(b.) To fix the relations which give rise 
to the domestic affections, etc. 

(c.) To prevent polygamy, which 1, was 
forbidden by the original law, although 
the practice of the Jews may have 
fallen short of it ; 2, was expressly 
forbidden by Christ in his discourse 
with the Pharisees ; 3, is forbidden 
also by nature. 

(d.) To prevent fornication, (p. 545,) 
which it does, 1, by providing for a 
lawful gratification of the sexual ap- 
petite ; 2, by the mutual love which 
it presupposes in the parties, without 
which the institution is profaned. 
(3.) Character of the marriage contract. 

(a.) It is partly a civil contract — being 
under the control of the state for 
weighty reasons. 

(b.) It is also a religious act, in which 
vows are made to God by the con- 
tracting parties. Though the Scrip- 
tures do not expressly assign its cele- 



202 ANALYSIS OF 

bration to the ministers of religion, 
yet the state has wisely done it. 
(4.) Rights and duties of marriage. 
(Pp. 547-550.) 

2. Duties of children. Comprehensiveness 
of the precept, " Honour thy father and thy 
mother," embracing 

(1.) Love, comprising esteem and grati- 
tude. , 
(2.) Reverence, ^comprising, a,) the desire 
to please, b,) the fear to offend, c,) the 
external manifestation of these in honour 
and civility, and, d,) the support of pa- 
rents when in necessity. 
(3.) Obedie7ice, which is to be universal, 
except in cases of conscience. This 
rule is most severely and frequently tried 
in reoard to marriage. Here 
a.) The child is not bound to marry at 

the command of the parents, 
b.) But should not violate their prohibi- 
tion, except, only, when the parties 
are of age, and then only if, 1,) the 
opposition is to* a- child's marrying a 
religious person;' or 2,) is capricious; 
or 3,) is unreasonable. 

3. Duties of parents. (P. 553.) 
(1.) Love, implying 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 203 

(a.) The natural instinct of affection, 

cultivated by religion, 
(b.) The care and support of offspring. 
(2.) Instruction^ which includes 

(a.) The education of children in a way 

suited to their condition, 
(b.) Their training in the " nurture and 
admonition of the Lord" — as the pa- 
rent is a priest in his own family ; and 
(c.) The affording them a godly example. 
(3.) Government, which should be 
(a.) Mild and gentle, 
(b.) Firm and faithful, implying even 
the use of corporeal punishment, when 
necessary. 
(4.) Provision for the settlement of chil- 
dren in the world is a duty of parents, 
only limited by their ability. 
4. Duties of servant and master. (P. 555.) 
(a.) This is a relation which must exist, 

as equality of condition is impossible. 
(b.) But it is a source of great evil, when 

unregulated by religion. 
(c.) The preceptj? of the New Testament 
go to prevent this evil, by assigning, 
(1.) The duties of servants — viz., honour 
and obedience — which are to be cheer- 
ful and from the heart. 



204 analVsis of 

(2.) The reciprocal duties of servants 
and masters ; involving obedience on 
the one part, and kindness, modera- 
tion, and justice, on the other ; and 

(3.) The religious duties of masters, 
including — 1. Religious instruction: 

2. The observance of the sabbath : 

3. Existing infiuence in favour of re- 
ligion. 

(III.) Political justice. 

1. Origin of power. (P. 569.) 

(a.) The Scriptures declare government to 
be an ordinance of God. 

(b.) The doctrine of a " social compact" is 
therefore unscriptural. 

(c.) Paley's view, which places the obli- 
gation in the will of God as collected 
from expediency, is too loose ; that will 
is declared in Scripture, 

2. Rights and duties of sovereign and sub- 
ject reciprocal. (P. 562.) 

(a.) Duties of government, — enactment 
of just laws, etc. Obligation ground- 
ed on direct passages of Scripture, 
(Pp. 562-3.) 

(b.) Duties of subjects, — obedience, tri- 
bute, prayer, &c. 

3. Question — " How far does it consist with 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 205 

Christian submission to endeavour to re- 
medy the evils of a government ? (P. 564.) 
(a.) No form of government is enjoined in 
Scripture. Hence there is no divine 
right in particular families, 
(b.) Resistance to an established govern- 
ment, whatever may be its form, is con- 
sistent with duty only in certain extreme 
cases. (P. 556.) There are two kinds 
of resistance : 

1. Of opinion. In order to be lawful 
this resistance must be, (1) just ; 

(2) directed against public acts ; 

(3) practical ; (4) deliberate ; (5) not 
factious ; (6) not respecting local, but 
general interests. 

2. Of force. This may be divided into 
two kinds — 

(1.) That of a controlling force in the 
government ; e. g., the British par- 
liament, which can refuse supplies, 
etc. This resistance, which is im- 
plied by a constitution, is lawful, 
when advisedly and patriotically 
employed. 

(2.) That of arms. Three cases may 
be supposed ; 
a.) Where the nation enjoys and 



206 AxNALYSIS OF 

values good institutions. Here 
unjust aggressions will not suc- 
ceed, 
b.) Where popular opinion is only 
partly enlightened. Here the 
work of improvement should pre- 
cede resistance. Should the des- 
pot triumph, patriotism will suffer. 
Should the reformers triumph, 
the ignorant mass run on into 
licentiousness ; e. g., French re- 
volution and parliamentary war. 
c.) Where the sovereign power 
acts, by mercenaries, or other- 
wise, in opposition to the views 
of the majority. Here resistance 
is justifiable, e. g., revolution of 
1688. 

(c.) The case of rival governments. 

(d.) Resistance for conscience^ sake. 



WATSON'^ INSTITUTES. 207 

PART FOURTH. 

Institutions of Christianity. 
Outline. 

I. The Christian church. Ch. i. 

II. The sacraments. Ch. ii-iv. 
(I.) Number and nature of sacra- 
ments, (Ch. ii.) 

(II.) Sacrament of baptism, (Ch. iii.) 

(III.) Sacrament of Lord's supper, (Ch. iv.) 

I. The Christian church. Ch. i. 

The church of Christ, in its largest sense, 
consists of all who have been baptized in the 
name of Jesus Christ ; in a stricter sense, it con- 
sists of those who are vitally united to Christ. 
Taken in either view, it is a visible, permanent 
society, bound to obey certain rules, and of 
course government is necessarily supposed to 
exist in it. We have four points to examine in 
this chapter : — 
I. The nature of this government. It is wholly 

spiritual, for 

1. .It is concerned only with spiritual objects. 

2. Its only punitive discipline is comprised 



208 ANALYSIS OF 

in " admonition," " reproof," " sharp re- 
bukes," and finally, " excision from the 
society." 
II. The persons to v)hom this government is com- 
mitted, (P. 574.) It is necessary here to 
consider the composition of the primitive 
church, as stated in the New Testament. 

1. Enunciation of offices in the church. Eph. 
iv, 11. 

2. Whether the words bishop and presbyter 
express two distinct sacred orders, has 
been a subject of much controversy. But 
it may be easily shown that there is no 
distinction of order, whatever distinction 
of office may exist. 

(1.) The argument from the promiscuous 
use of these terms in the New Testament 
seems incontrovertible. Acts xx, 28; 
Titus i, 5 ; Phil, i, 1 ; 2 John 1, &c. 

(2.) A distinction between bishops and 
presbyters did indeed arise at a very 
early period ; but it proves nothing for a 
superior order n^xfor diocesan episco- 
pacy : for it cannot be shown that the 
power of ordination was given to bishops 
to the exclusion of presbyters ; and this 
early distinction may be easily account- 
ed for. 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 209 

a.) It became expedient, doubtless, in 
the meetings of presbyters, at a very 
early period, that one should be cho- 
sen to preside over the rest ; but the 
practice, as testified subsequently by 
Jerome, was founded solely upon ex- 
pediency. It is to be remembered, that 
the primitive churches were formed 
very much upon the model of the Jew- 
ish synagogues, 
b.) As Christianity made its way, the 
concerns of the districts of country 
surrounding cities naturally fell un- 
der the cognizance of the bishops 
of those cities. Thus diocesans arose ; 
— subsequently, metropolitans, pri- 
mates, patriarchs, and finally the pope 
came in. (Pp. 579-82.) 
(3.) The doctrine of succession cannot be 
made out : and if it could, would only 
trace diocesan bishops to the bishops 
of parishes. 
(4.) As for episcopacy itself, it may bo 
freely allowed as a prudential regula- 
tion, wherever circumstances require 
it : — but it may be questioned whether 
presbyters could lawfully surrender their 
rights of government and ordination into 
14 



210 ANALYSIS OF 

the hands of a bishop, without that se- 
curity which arises from the accounta- 
bility of the administrator. (Pp. 582-6.) 
3. On the subject of the church itself, very 
different views have been held : — 
(1.) The Papist view contends for its visi- 
ble unity throughout the world under a 
visible head. (P. 586.) 
(2.) The modern Independent view goes 

as far the other way. (P. 587.) 
The persons appointed to feed and govern 
the church being, then, those who are 
called '^ pastor s,^^ we have now to notice, 
III. The share which the body of the people have 
in their own government. (Pp. 587—96.) 
a. General views. 

1 . The connection of church and state 
gives rise to questions of peculiar per- 
plexity and difficulty. We do not con- 
sider the church in this state. 

2. The New Testament view of the churches 
is, that they are associations founded 
upon conviction of the truth of Chris- 
tianity, and the obligatory nature of the 
commands of Christ ; — and the mutual 
interdependence of pastors and people, 
with perfect religious liberty, is every- 
where recognised in it. 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 211 

3. Questions of church government are 
often argued on the false ground that 
the governing power, in churches to 
which communion is perfectly voluntary, 
is of the same character as when it is 
connected with the civil authority. No- 
thing can be more fallacious. 

4. In settling church government, there 
are pre-existing laws of Christ, which 
cannot be neglected or set aside. The 
government of the church is in its pas- 
tors, open to formal modifications ; — and 
it is to be conducted with such a concur- 
rence of the people as shall guard against 
abuse, without interfering with the Scrip- 
tural exercise of pastoral duties. 

b. These views applied to particular cases. 

(1.) As to the ordination of ministers. 
This power was never conveyed by the 
people : it was vested in the ministers 
alone, to be exercised on their responsi- 
bility to Christ. (Pp. 590-1.) 

(2.) As to the laws by which the church 
is to be governed. Those which are 
explicitly contained in the New Testa- 
ment are to be executed by the rulers, 
and obeyed by the people. (Pp. 591-4.) 

(3.) Other disciplinary regulations are 



212 ANALYSIS OF 

liiatters of mutual agreement ; but de- 
mocratic tendencies are to be shunned. 
(P. 594.) 
(4.) Power of admission and expulsion 
rests with the pastor, as also that of try- 
ing unworthy servants. (P. 595.) 
IV. The ends to which church authority is legiti- 
mately directed. 

1 . The preservation and publication of sound 
doctrine : called by systematic writers, 
potestas doyfiarcfiTj : which may be thus 
summed up : — 

(1.) To declare the sense in which the 
church interprets the language of Scrip- 
ture. 
(2.) To require all its members to examine 
such declarations of faith with docility 
and humility ; while their right of pri- 
vate judgment is not violated. 
(3.) To silence within its pale all preach- 
ing contrary to its standards. 
'2. The power of regulation : called, techni- 
cally, po^e^^^a^ d^ara«;r^/c?/. 
3. The power of inflicting and removing cen- 
sures ; — potestas diafcpLTCfCTj. (Pp. 600-5.) 
(1.) Undoubtedly this power lies in the 
church: it has However been sadly 
abused. 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 213 

(2.) The claims of the Romish Church, in 

this particular, are arrogant assumptions, 

e. g., views founded on the gift of the 

keys to St. Peter. 

The labour of church government, and its 

difficulty, will always be greatly mitigated 

by a steady regard, on the part of both 

pastors and people, to duties as well as to 

rights. (P. 605.) 

II. The sacraments. Ch. ii-iv. 
(I.) Number and nature of the sacra- 
ments. (Ch. ii.) 

I. Number of the sacraments. Two only, 
baptism and the Lord's supper, are insti- 
tuted in the New Testament, and admitted 
by Protestants ; the Romish Church added 
five others. 

1. The word used by the Greek fathers 
was fjLvg-Tjptov: — the Latin term is sa- 
cramentum, which signified (1,) a sacred 
ceremony, and (2,) the oath of fidelity 
taken by the Roman soldiers. For both 
these reasons, probably, the term was 
adopted by the Roman Christians. 

2. The sacraments are to be vi(3wed as fede- 
ral acts, which view sweeps away the 
^WQ superstitious additions of the Romish 



214 ANALYSIS OF 

Church — confirmation, penance, orders, 
matrimony, and extreme unction. 
II. Nature of the sacraments. There are 
three leading views. (P. 608.) 

1 . That of the Church of Rome, gratia ex 
opere operato, that the sacraments con- 
tain the grace they signify, and confer 
it, by the work itself. The objections 
to this doctrine are, 

(1.) It has no pretence of authority from 
Scripture, nay, 

(2.) It is decidedly antiscriptural. 

(3.) It debases the ordinance into a mere 
charm. 

(4.) It tends to licentiousness. 

(5.) It causes the virtue of the ordi- 
nance to depend upon the intention 
of the administrator. 

2. The opposite view is that of the Soci- 
nians, to which some orthodox Protes- 
tants have carelessly leaned, — that the 
sacraments are valuable solely as em- 
blems of the; spiritual and invisible. 
This scheme is' as defective as that of 
the Papists is excessive. 

3. The third opinion is that of the Protes- 
tant churches : — expressed in the lan- 
guage (1,) of the Heidelberg Catechism, 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 215 

(2,) of the Church of England, (3,) of 
the Church of Scotland, containing the 
same leading views, that the sacra- 
ments are both signs and seals, 
(a.) Sense in which they are signs. 
(b.) Sense in which they are seals. 
(II.) Sacrament of baptism. (Ch. iii.) 

The obligation of baptism rests upon (1,) the 
example of our Lord ; (2,) his command 
to the apostles, Matthew xxviii, 19; 
(3,) upon the practice of the apostles 
themselves. 
I. The nature of baptism. 

a. The Romanists consider baptism by a 
priest as of itself applying the merits of 
Christ to the person baptized: — and 
from this view arises their distinction 
between sins committed before and after 
baptism. The Lutheran Church places 
the efficacy of this sacrament in regene- 
ration ; nor has the Church of England 
departed entirely from the terms used 
by the Romish Ghnrch. The Quakers 
reject the rite altogether ; and the So- 
cinians merely regard it as a mode of 
professing the religion of Christ. 

b. The orthodox view is, that baptism is 
a federal transaction. (P. 614.) It is 



216 ANALYSIS OF 

of great importance to establish the 

covenant character of this ordinance. 

(1.) The covenant with Abraham, Gen. 
xvii, 7, was the general covenant of 
grace, and not chiefly a political and 
national covenant: — there s^re Jive dis- 
tinct stipulations, under which, though 
they were promises of temporal ad- 
vantages, are conveyed a higher and 
spiritual covenant of grace. 

(2.) Circumcision was its '' sign and 
seal," both temporally and spiritu- 
ally. 

(3.) As a seal of restriction, circum- 
cision was done away by Christ. 
- (P. 617.) 

(4.) Paul's different views of circum- 
cision may be explained by consider- 
ing the different principles on which 
circumcision might be practised after 
it had become an obsolete ordinance : 
1, 2, 3, 4. (Pp. 618-19.) 

(5.) Baptisni IS, to the new covenant, 
what circumcision was to the old, and 
took its place by the appointment of 
God. (P. 620.) This may be argued, 
1. From our Lord's commission to the 
apostles, Matt, xxviii, 19; Mark xvi, 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 217 

15, 16. 2. From the words of our 
Lord to Nicodemus, " Except a man 
be born," &c. (P. 621.) 3. From 
Col. ii, 10-12, " And ye are complete 
in him," &;c. (P. 621.) 4. From Gal. 
iii, 27-29, *' For as many of you as 
have been baptized," &c. (P. 622.) 
5. From 1 Pet. iii, 20, " Which some- 
time were disobedient," &c. (P. 622.) 

a. Baptism is here called the antitype 
of Noah's salvation by the ark, be- 
cause his building and entering it 
were the visible expression of his 
faith. 

b. The meaning of the passage will 
vary with the rendering of the word 
eTTspojTrjfjia ; but 

c. However that word is rendered, 
the whole text shows that baptism, 
when an act of true faith, becomes 
an instrument of salvation. 

(6.) Baptism, both as a sign and seal, 
presents an ' entire correspondence 
to the ancient' rite of circumcision. 
(Pp. 625-9.) 

1. As a sign. Circumcision exhibit- 
ed \he placability of God, — held out 
the promise of justification, and 



218 ANALYSIS OF 

was the sign of sanctification : — so 
baptism exhibits the divine placa- 
bility, — is the initiatory rite into the 
covenant of pardon, — and is the 
symbol of regeneration. But bap- 
tism as a sign, is more than circum- 
cision, implying the outpouring of 
the Holy Spirit in its fulness, 
2. As a seal. As in circumcision, 
blessings were pledged on the part 
of God, so in baptism are all spi- 
ritual gifts pledged : — and as in cir- 
' cumcision a holy life was pro- 

mised on the part of the believer, so 
in baptism do we pledge ourselves, 
to the obedience of Christ. 
Booth's objection, and the reply. 
II. Subjects of baptism. 

a. All adults who possess faith in Christ. 
(P. 629.) 

b. Infant children. The practice of infant 
baptism may be shown to rest upon the 
strongest basis of Scriptural authority. 
(1.) Infants were circumcised ; baptism 

takes the place of circumcision : 
therefore the absence of an explicit 
exclusion of infants is sufficient proof 
of their title to baptism. 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 219 

(2.) The fact that the baptism of infants 
is nowhere prohibited in the New 
Testament, must have been mislead- 
ing to all men, and especially to 
Jewish believers, if it were not 
proper. 

1. Baptisms were common among the 
Jews ; their proselyte baptism was 
a baptism oi families, and compre- 
hended their infant children. (Pp. 
631-633,) 

2. The words of Peter at the pente- 
cost, '^ Repent and be baptized, for 
the promise is unto you and to your 
children," could not have been un- 
derstood by the Jews except as 
calling upon them and their chil- 
dren to be baptized. Reasons, 1, 
2, 3. (Pp. 633-5.) 

(3.) Infant children are declared by 
Christ to be members of his church. 
(Pp. 635-9.) 

1. They were so under the old dis- 
pensation, and no change was made. 
(P. 635.) 

2. We have our Lord's direct testi- 
mony to this point — in two remark- 
able passages : a) Luke ix, 47, 48 ; 



220 ANALYSIS OF 

b) Mark x, 14. Notice the Bap- 
tist evasions of the argument from 
this latter passage. (Pp. 636-9.) 
(4.) The argument from apostolic prac- 
tice next offers itself. 
As to the absence of any express mention 
of infant baptism, instead of bearing 
in favour of the Baptists, it is a strong 
argument against them ; for such an ex- 
traordinary alteration as the forbidding 
of infant baptism, vi^ould have required 
particular explanation. The baptisms 
of whole houses mentioned in the Acts 
are sufficient proof of the apostolic prac- 
tice ; they were either (1) instances o{ 
apostolic action, which would cover the 
whole ground, or (2) peculiar cases ; — 
and even if this latter be admitted, the 
Baptist must still show, that neither in 
the family of 

1. The Philippian jailer, (p. 640,) nor 
in that of 

2. Lydia, (p. 641,) nor yet in that of 

3. Stephanas, (1. Cor. i, 16,) (p. 642,) 
were there any infants at all, which, 
to say the least of it, is very im- 
probable. 

(5.) The last argument may be drawn 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 221 

from the antiquity of the practice of 
infant baptism. (Pp. 644-6.) 

1. We have strong presumptive proof 
of its antiquity in the fact, that if it 
were ever introduced as an inno- 
vation, it was introduced without 
controversy ! 

2. Tertullian, (second century,) was 
the only ancient writer who op- 
posed infant baptism ; but his very 
opposition proves the practice older 
than himself; he never speaks of 
its novelty. 

3. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Origen, 
mention infant baptism a^ the prac- 

, tice of their times ; and in A. D. 

• 254^the question of deferring bap- 
tism to the eighth day was discuss- 
ed. (P. 645.) 

4. Th^ Anabaptists are of modern 
origin. (P. 646.) 

III. Benefits of baptism. 

1. To the adult believer it is, (1) the sign 
of his admission into the covenant of 
grace ; (2) the seal, on the part of God, 
of the fulfilment of all its provisions ; 
(3) the pledge, on his own part, of stead- 
fast faith and obedience. 



222 ANALYSIS OF 

2. To the infant it conveys a pledge of 
divine grace, — the present blessing of 
Christ, — the gift of the Holy Spirit, — 
and the respect which God has to the 
believing act of the parents. 

3. To the parents it is a blessing also. 
IV. Mode of baptism. This is comparatively 

of little moment, but has been the subject 
of much controversy. In considering the 
doctrine that the only legitimate mode of 
baptizing is by immersion, we notice, 

a. Several presumptions against it. (Pp. 
647-8.) 

(1.) It is not expressly enjoined. 

(2.) It is unsuitable to many climates 
and circumstances — nay, sometimes 
impossible.' 

(3.) It puts away the consideration of 
health and life in many cases. 

(4.) It is likely to distract the thoughts. 

(5.) It is improbable. that the three thou- 
sand converts of the day of Pentecost 
were immersed, or that the jailer's 
family were. 

(6.) The practice is not a decent one. 

b. The argument from antiquity. (Pp. 648-50) 
(1 .) Immersion is ancient, — so is anoint- 
ing with oil, &c. 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 223 

(2.) Aspersion and effusion are also an- 
cient, — witness Tertullian, Cyprian, 
Gennadius, Aquinas, Erasmus. 

(3.) The baptism oi naked subjects was 
ancient, — doubtless a superstitious 
extension of the original rite. 
, The argument from the New Testament, 

(Pp. 650-60.) 

(1.) Use of the word jSanri^G). 

1 . The verb, with its derivatives, sig- 
nifies either to dip, stain, wet with 
dew, Slc. 

2. Employment of it in Scripture illus- 
trated by various passages : 2 Kings 
iii, 11 ; Luke vii, 44 ; Dan. iv, 33 ; 
1 Cor. X, 2. It is used generally in 
the New Testament to express the 
act of pouring or sprinkling water. 

(2.) Cases of baptism (in the New Tes- 
tament) adduced commonly in proof 
of immersion. 

1. John's baptism, (p. 652,) "They 

were baptized of him in Jordan," 

^ therefore they were immersed, is 

the argument. But 

(a.) The object of this passage was 

to declare the place, not the mode 

of John's baptism. 



224 ANALYSIS OV 

(b.) The " baptism with the Holy 
Ghost" sufficiently illustrates the 
mode of John's baptism, the same 
form of words being used in re- 
gard to both. 

(c.) The character of the river and 
the scarcity of water accounts 
for the place of baptism, and for 
the language employed here to 
fix it. (Pp. 653-4.) River bap- 
tism does not necessarily im- 
ply immersion. Quotation from 
Wolfe. ' 

2. Our Lord's baptism. " He went 
•»p straightway out of the water," 

V •'• Matt, iii, 16. This does tiot favour 

immersion more than any other 
mode of baptism, 

3. The eunuch's baptism'.' '■" And 
when they were come up out of the 
water," &c.. Acts viii, 38. If this 

r^^ proves any immersion, it prov^es 
that Philip was immers^e^^s well as 
th-e eunuch. But ecg and etc do not 
necessarily mean into and out of. 

4. 'Baptism by Jesus and by John in 
iEnon, John iii, 22. No proof of 
immersion. 



WATSON- S INSTITUTES. 225 

(3.) Argument from Romans vi, 3, 4, 
'^ Therefore we are buried with him 
by baptism," &c. Here the Baptists 
suppose a comparison is instituted be- 
tween burial of Christ and immer- 
sion. But 

1. If such resemblance be intended 
by *' buried," why not also by 
" planted," and " crucified," both 
which terms are used in the same 
connection ? (P. 657.) 

2. The type of our death, burial, and 
resurrection as believers, in this 
passage, is not the clumsy one of 
immersion ; but the death, burial, 
nnd resurrection of our Lord. fPp. 
657-9.) 

We conclude, therefore, that the pouring 
out of water was the apostolic mode 
of administering the ordinance, and 
that washing and immersion were in- 
troduced later, along with other super- 
. ./i&titious additions to* this" sg^prament. 
(111.) Sacrament of Lord's supper. (Ch. iv.) 
Agreement and difference between baptism 
and the Lord's supper as stated in the Cate- 
chism of the Church of Scotland. We 
notice now, 

15 



226 ANALYSIS OF 

I. The institution of the ordinance. 

1. As baptism took the place of circumci- 
sion, so the Lord's supper was instituted 
in place of the passover. 

2. It was instituted by Christ immediately 
after celebrating the passover for the 
last time with his disciples. 

II. Its perpetuity and obligation, (P. 661.) 
From 1 Cor. xi, 23, 26, we learn, 

1 . That Paul reeeived a special revelation 
as to this ordinance. 

2. That the command of Christ, " This do 
in remembrance of me," was laid by 
Paul upon the Corinthians. 

3. That he regarded the Lord's supper as 
a rite to be o/i^e?i celebrated. 

III. Its nature. 

1. Various views of 

(1.) The Church of Rome, which held 
the doctrine of transubstantiadon, — 
of an intrinsic value in the elements 
themselves,— of the elements being 
proper objects of worship and homage, 
— and of the cup being withheld from 
the laity. 

(2.) Luther, who held that though the 
bread and wine remain unchanged, 
the body and blood of Christ are re- 



WATSON'S INSTITUTES. 227 

ceived together with them, — the doc- 
trine of consiibstantiation. 
(3.) Carolostadt and Ziiingle, who taught 
that the bread and wine are the signs 
of the absent body and blood of Christ. 
This view is adopted, with some libe- 
rality, by the Socinians. 
(4.) The reformed churches, which re- 
ject both transubstantiation and con- 
substantiation, but go further than the 
Socinians, in declaring that to all who 
remember Christ worthily, he is spi- 
ritually present in the sacrament. 
, Sacramental character of the ordi- 
nance. (P. 667.) 

(1.) As to Christ. The words, " this is 
my body," &c., show that the Lord's 
supper is a visible sign that the cove- 
nant was ratified by the sacrificial 
death of Christ. 
(2.) As to the recipients. It is a recog- 
nition of their faith in the sacrificial 
death of Christ. 
(3.) As a sign, it exhibits, a) the love 
of God, b) the love of Christ, c) the 
extreme nature of his sufl^erings, d)the 
vicarious character of his death, e) the 
benefits derived from it through faith. 



228 ANALYSIS OF WATSON^S INSTITUTES. 

(4.) As a seal, it is, a) a pledge of the 
continuance of God's covenant, b) a 
pledge to each believet of God's mer- 
cy, c) an exhibition of Christ as the 
spiritual food of the soul, d) a renew- 
ed assurance of divine grace. 
IV. General observations, 

1 . The ordinance excludes, not only open 
unbelievers, but all vi\\o deny the atone- 
ment. 

2. All are disqualified who do not give evi- 
dence of genuine repentance and desire 
for salvation. 

3 Every church should shut out such per- 
sons by discipline. 

4. But the table of the Lord is not to be 
surrounded with superstitious terrors. 

5. There is no rule as to the frequency of 
celebrating the ordinance. 

6. Its habitual neglect by professing Chris- 
tians is highly censurable. 



THE END. 



JUN 



m 



o < 

i; 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



